Department for International Development

Annual Report and Accounts 2011–12

(For the year ended 31 March 2012)

Annual Report presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 1 of the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006.

Accounts presented to the House of Commons pursuant to Section 6(4) of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000.

Accounts presented to the House of Lords by Command of Her Majesty.

Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 25 June 2012.

# Contents

**Key Headline Results**\
2

**Foreword by the Secretary of State**\
3

**Non-Executive Director’s Report**\
5

**Chapter 1: DFID Achievements and Expenditure**\
7\
Overview of DFID\
7\
What DFID has Achieved\
10\
What DFID has Spent\
35

**Chapter 2: Results in DFID Priority Countries**\
43

**Chapter 3: Delivering through Multilateral Organisations**\
75

**Chapter 4: Making UK Aid more Effective**\
85

**Chapter 5: Financial Accounts**\
93

**Chapter 6: Analysis of Departmental Expenditure**\
187

**Annex A: DFID Allocations by Programme**\
199

**Annex B: Annual Reporting of Statistical Information**\
202

**Annex C: Results Framework Notes**\
219

**Annex D: Business Plan impact indicators**\
222

**Annex E: Glossary and Abbreviations**\
225 Key Headline Results

Results achieved through DFID’s Bilateral Programme

By 2011/12 DFID had achieved the following results since the baselines for its public results commitments:

- Improved the land and property rights of 1.1 million people
- Supported 5.3 million children (2.5 million of them girls) to go to primary school
- Distributed 12.2 million bednets to protect people against malaria
- Supported 26 African countries to agree an Africa Free Trade Area
- Enabled 11.9 million people to work their way out of poverty by providing access to financial services
- Prevented 2.7 million children and pregnant women from going hungry
- Reached 6 million people with emergency food assistance
- Supported freer and fairer elections in 5 countries
- Improved hygiene conditions for 7.4 million people

Results achieved through DFID’s Multilateral Programme

The multilateral organisations which DFID supported achieved the following key results in 2011:

- Ensured 99.1 million people had enough food to eat (World Food Programme)
- Immunised 37.3 million children against preventable diseases (The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation)
- Detected and treated 900,000 cases of tuberculosis (The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria)
- Gave 7.3 million households clean water to drink with a new water supply (Asian Development Bank)
- Equipped 6.6 million people with new electricity connections (over 2009-2011 period; African Development Bank) When the Coalition Government took office two years ago, we were clear that we wanted to transform Britain’s approach to international development. Since then we have pursued that agenda relentlessly: delivering results, transparency and value for money in British aid; focusing more on fragile and conflict-affected states; and harnessing the power of the private sector, which we recognise to be the engine of development.

Taken together, the reforms we have made to British policy on international development mean that British aid is now working to stimulate open societies and open economies. Open societies, in which people are free to exercise choice and to challenge and secure change; where rights and laws are respected; where people are not held back because of who they are; and where government is open and accountable. And open economies, where citizens can pursue opportunities to generate income and provide for their own livelihoods; where they can freely and fairly trade their skills and capital on the market place; and where governance is not corrupt, but transparent, credible and stable.

During the Coalition’s first year in Government we focused on putting in place the framework that would allow us to achieve these goals. We supplemented our Business Plan with an ambitious Structural Reform Plan setting out exactly what we were going to do. Alongside this, we carried out a fundamental re-think of the way that we allocate money to country offices and multilateral institutions, a radical process which has since been widely copied by other countries and across the international system.

In the subsequent 12 months – the period covered by this Annual Report – we really got on with delivering on our key promises. During the last year we have delivered substantial results to help improve the lives of millions of people, and at the same time helped poor countries to lay the structural foundations that are the pre-requisite of long-term growth and stability.

Over the past twelve months key reforms we have completed include:

- launching the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, a body providing independent evaluation and which, crucially, is accountable not to Ministers, but to Parliament
- piloting a whole new way of doing development, through cash on delivery contracts and other forms of payment by results
- reforming and revitalising CDC, the Government’s development finance institution, focusing it on the poorest parts of the world and;
- through our support for the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, setting out how we will vaccinate a child every two seconds for the next five years.

And we have developed the systems that allow us to set out what results we intend to achieve over the Spending Review period while also allowing the public to track how we are doing against our commitments. Something so apparently obvious, but which had never been done before. Over the last two years, aid from Britain has quite simply transformed the lives of millions in the world’s poorest countries. This has included:

- vaccinating over 12 million children against preventable diseases
- improving the land and property rights of 1.1 million people
- supporting 5.3 million children (2.5 million of them girls) to go to primary school
- distributing 12.2 million bednets to protect people against malaria
- supporting 26 African countries to agree an Africa Free Trade Area
- enabling 11.9 million people to work their way out of poverty by providing access to financial services
- preventing 2.7 million children and pregnant women from going hungry
- reaching 6 million people with emergency food assistance
- supporting freer and fairer elections in 5 countries
- improving hygiene conditions for 7.4 million people.

These results are encouraging but we cannot afford to be complacent. There are other areas, notably, on family planning, where the task ahead of us remains considerable and where we must re-double our efforts.

This has been a year of immense activity. We have delivered against our promised results. We have continued to mainstream transparency, accountability and growth across all our work. We have catalysed private sector investment and entrepreneurialism. We have responded to humanitarian crises in places including, the Horn of Africa, Syria, Liberia and Yemen. In all of this, we have, as we said we would, put girls and women at the front and centre of all our efforts.

As we look ahead to the next twelve months I want to see British aid doing even more: transforming more lives, creating more jobs, stimulating more growth, encouraging more innovation and giving more people a voice in their own future.

In all of this, our watchword will be ‘results’. Not just the results that are easy to measure, but the ones that are harder to track too: greater empowerment, less corruption and stronger governance. These help tackle the things that deprive people of hope and entrench long-term poverty. It is only by tackling them that we will help countries to make that vital transition towards a peaceful, stable and lasting future. This is the agenda that will shape my department’s activity over the year ahead.

Rt Hon Andrew Mitchell Secretary of State for International Development June 2012 Lead Non-Executive Director’s Introduction to the Annual Report

I have been on the Ministerial Board for a little over a year now, and it has been a time of considerable change within the Department. On the people side, Mark Lowcock took over as Permanent Secretary in June, following Minouche Shafik’s departure to the International Monetary Fund. There have also been two new Director General appointments. Changing leadership always presents a risk but the transition was well managed, and I saw no impact on the Department’s ability to deliver its very challenging agenda. I was struck when I arrived by the amount of change and the size of the challenge.

DFID’s reputation internationally remains very strong. The UK is widely respected for its commitment to development and DFID is seen as innovative and strong on delivery. The BAR (Bilateral Aid Review) and MAR (Multilateral Aid Review) processes are seen as innovative best practice, and the focus on value for money is now beginning to influence other government and multilateral agencies. Of course, with this reputation comes responsibility, and DFID has the opportunity to play a significant role in shaping the global priorities when the current Millennium Development Goals framework ends in 2015.

In conducting the Capability Review of the Department with my fellow Non-Executive Director, Doreen Langston, we concluded that the capability of the Department continues to increase. However the challenges faced by the Department are also significantly increased. The UK government’s commitment to increase spending on development to 0.7% of GNI by 2013 means an increase in the size of the front line delivery teams especially in country. At the same time, in common with other government departments, the budget for administration will reduce by one-third over the spending review period. DFID have made good progress on the admin reductions, but getting the right new people in delivery roles has taken longer than expected, which has put the organisation under pressure. The focus on delivering aid in fragile and conflict states increases risk, and it is possible that some projects will fail to deliver the expected results. This is understood in the Department, but could negatively affect public opinion. The tension between working in these difficult countries and delivering measurable results in the short term is also understood and managed. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact highlighted the problem of fraud and corruption in a recent report, (although they found no evidence of funds being misused in DFID programmes) and DFID is responding. However, this will be an on-going challenge. Overall though, I have been impressed by the quality of the staff in DFID and their commitment to delivering improved outcomes for the people in the developing world, and by doing that, contributing to the security of the UK and to the opportunities for businesses.

During the past year I have seen the Department make good progress in a number of areas. In particular there has been a real improvement in the quality of management information, in the understanding of risk and in the tracking of delivery against the objectives. Whilst the concept of value for money is built into the processes of the Department, more needs to be done to make it part of the culture of the organisation.

The Ministerial Board has become progressively more effective during the year. The Secretary of State and his Ministers are committed to making it work. There have been four meetings during the past year. There are two independent Non-Executive Directors, myself and Doreen Langston who has been involved with DFID for 4 years and chairs the Audit Committee. Both Doreen and I have an open invitation to attend the Management Board and the Senior Leadership Committee. We are also part of the Secretary of State’s Ministerial Advisory Group. There have been three meetings of this group. during the year, each bringing together an impressive group of external participants to debate and challenge aspects of DFID’s strategy. I am impressed by the Department’s willingness to open itself to scrutiny and challenge. The establishment of an independent group to evaluate the impact of UK aid – The Independent Commission for Aid Impact – is the clearest example.

I do not underestimate the challenge for the Department to deliver on the ambitious goals set, but much progress has been made during the year, and there is certainly no complacency. It has been a privilege to be involved in my capacity as an independent Director.

Vivienne Cox Non-Executive Director for the Department for International Development June 2012 CHAPTER 1:

DFID Achievements and Expenditure

1.1 Overview

About DFID

1.1 The Department for International Development (DFID) leads the UK government’s effort to fight global poverty.

1.2 DFID operates under the International Development Act, which came into force in 2002 and establishes the legal basis for UK development assistance. This means the Secretary of State for International Development can provide development assistance for sustainable development and welfare, provided he is satisfied this assistance is likely to contribute to poverty reduction.

1.3 The 2006 International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act strengthens the accountability of the UK Government in delivering its pledges to help the world’s poorest countries and people. The Act requires DFID to report annually to Parliament on development policies and programmes and the provision of aid to partner countries and the way it is used. This report discharges DFID’s responsibilities under the Act for 2011-12.

1.4 DFID is represented in the Cabinet by the Secretary of State for International Development Andrew Mitchell MP; in the House of Commons the Secretary of State is supported by Minister of State Alan Duncan MP and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Stephen O’Brien MP; and in the House of Lords by Spokesperson Baroness Northover.

1.5 The senior civil servant in DFID is the Permanent Secretary, Mark Lowcock, who is assisted on the DFID Management Board by the Directors General and Non-Executive Directors. The Board is chaired by the Permanent Secretary.

Aims and objectives

1.6 DFID’s overall aim is to reduce poverty in poorer countries, in particular through achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

1.7 The Millennium Development Goals1 are:

- MDG 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
- MDG 2: Achieve universal primary education
- MDG 3: Promote gender equality and empower women
- MDG 4: Reduce child mortality
- MDG 5: Improve maternal health
- MDG 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
- MDG 7: Ensure environmental sustainability
- MDG 8: Develop a global partnership for development

______________________________________________________________________

1 Further information on the MDGs is available at http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ 1.8 The DFID Business Plan for 2012-15 sets out a number of priorities for the Department aimed at supporting achievement of these goals. These are:

- Honour international commitments and support actions to achieve the MDGs;
- Drive transparency, value for money and open government;
- Boost wealth creation;
- Strengthen governance and security in fragile and conflict-affected countries and make UK humanitarian response more effective;
- Lead international action to improve the lives of girls and women; and
- Combat climate change.

1.9 DFID’s three other major areas of responsibility and priority are to:

- Respond to humanitarian disasters;
- Deliver on obligations to the Overseas Territories; and
- Influence the global development system.

Where DFID works

1.10 DFID works from two UK headquarters in London and East Kilbride and from offices overseas. DFID had over 2,500 staff in 2011-12, over half of whom worked in developing countries.

1.11 As a result of the Bilateral Aid Review commissioned in May 2010, the DFID aid programme is focused in fewer countries, so that support can be targeted where it will make the biggest difference, and as a result 28 priority countries (Figure 1.1) have been identified. These priority countries are: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria, Occupied Palestinian Territories, Pakistan, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, South Sudan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Uganda, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. DFID also has regional programmes in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean, and development relationships with the Overseas Territories.

1.12 DFID has moved out of an aid relationship with a number of countries during 2011 and 2012: Angola, Bosnia, Burundi, Cambodia, China, Iraq, Kosovo, Lesotho, Moldova, Niger, Russia and Serbia. Figure 1.1: DFID’s 28 priority countries

Key

DFID priority countries

Afghanistan Bangladesh Burma DR Congo Ethiopia Ghana India Kenya Kyrgyzstan Liberia Malawi Nepal Nigeria Occupied Palestinian Territories Pakistan Rwanda Sierra Leone Somalia South Africa Sudan South Sudan Tajikistan Uganda Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Tanzania 1.2 What DFID has Achieved

1.13 This section focuses on the development results of DFID programmes. In March 2011, DFID set out the key results the UK aimed to achieve over the next four years to tackle poverty and improve the lives of poor people in the countries where the UK works. This chapter and chapter 2, report for the first time the results achieved so far compared to those public commitments – which DFID aims to achieve in full by 2014/15. The commitments were based on the outcomes of the Bilateral and Multilateral Aid Reviews initiated by the Coalition Government. They were published in ‘UK aid: Changing lives, delivering results’ in March 2011 and in operational plans for each country and spending department in May 2011.

1.14 Table A shows the results DFID has achieved against these published commitments. Most of the results achieved are from bilateral programmes only, while four are from multilateral programmes or a combination of both bilateral and multilateral action. Table A identifies the indicator type for each result commitment. Further information on these indicators can be found later in this chapter in the section on ‘How the UK measures results’, in particular the section on Level 2: DFID results. It should be noted that information on results achieved is subject to time lags between the reference period and when the data is made available. It is possible that results data will be revised in next year’s Annual Report, as we receive more information for 2011/12 and earlier years.

1.15 The nature of the results measured and their impact on the lives of people vary considerably. Many of the results make a substantial impact on the life of the person reached, for example, a child supported to go to primary school, or a poor person receiving a regular cash payment to escape extreme poverty. Others measure impacts which may be much smaller on the lives of the individuals reached, though potentially significant for wider change. For example, DFID programmes to support people to hold decision-makers to account have touched the lives of millions of people in some way, making a small but sometimes important contribution to much bigger changes in governance.

### Table A: DFID ‘Changing Lives’ Commitments and Results Achieved to date

| DFID Results Commitment – by 2014/15 | Results Indicators | Indicator type | Bilateral/ Multilateral/ Both | Results Achieved since baseline\* | Of which 2011/12\* | |--------------------------------------|--------------------|----------------|-------------------------------|----------------------------------|-------------------| | **Helping people prosper** | | | | | | | Provide more than 50 million people with the means to work their way out of poverty | Number of people with access to financial services as a result of DFID support[9] | Final year | Both | 11,900,000 | 11,800,000 | | Help up to half of the countries in Africa benefit from freer trade | Number of countries supported to agree an Africa Free Trade area | Final year | Bilateral | 26 | 26 | | Secure the right to land and property for more than six million people | Number of people supported through DFID programmes to improve their rights to land and property | Cumulative | Bilateral | 1,100,000 | 800,000 | | **Feeding the world and helping the poorest** | | | | | | | Help more than six million of the world’s poorest people to escape extreme poverty | Number of people benefiting from DFID-supported cash transfer programmes | Peak Year | Bilateral | 3,400,000 | 3,400,000 | | Stop ten million more children going hungry | Number of children under five and pregnant women reached through DFID’s nutrition-relevant programmes | Peak Year | Bilateral | 2,700,000 | 2,700,000 | | Ensure that another four million people have enough food throughout the year | Number of people achieving food security through DFID support | Final Year | Bilateral | 400,000 | 300,000 | | **Changing children’s lives through learning** | | | | | | | Support nine million children in primary school | Number of children supported by DFID in primary education (per annum) | Peak Year | Bilateral | 5,300,000 | 2,900,000 | | Support two million children in secondary schools | Number of children supported by DFID in lower secondary education (per annum) | Peak Year | Bilateral | 600,000 | 200,000 | | DFID Results Commitment – by 2014/15 | Results Indicators | Indicator type | Bilateral/ Multilateral/ Both | Results Achieved since baseline\* | Of which 2011/12\* | |--------------------------------------|--------------------|----------------|-------------------------------|----------------------------------|------------------| | Support 700,000 girls in secondary schools | Number of children supported by DFID in lower secondary education (per annum) | Peak Year | Bilateral | 260,000 | 110,000 | | Train more than 190,000 teachers and improve the quality of education and children’s learning[7] | Number of teachers trained | Cumulative | Multilateral | 90,000 | Not currently available | | **Saving lives and preventing disease** | | | | | | | Help immunise more than 55 million children against preventable diseases[8] | Number of children immunised | Cumulative | Multilateral | 21,000,000 | 12,300,000 | | Save the lives of at least 50,000 women in pregnancy and childbirth | Number of maternal lives saved through DFID support | Modelled | Bilateral | Not currently available | Not currently available | | Save the lives of 250,000 new born babies | Number of neo-natal lives saved through DFID support | Modelled | Bilateral | Not currently available | Not currently available | | Help halve malaria deaths in ten of the worst affected countries | Number of malaria specific deaths per 1000 persons per year | Modelled | Bilateral | Not currently available | Not currently available | | Enable at least ten million more women to use modern methods of family planning by 2015 | Number of additional women using modern methods of family planning through DFID support[9] | Final Year | Both | 1,000,000 | 600,000 | | Support at least two million women to deliver their babies safely with skilled midwives, nurses and doctors | Number of births delivered with the help of nurses, midwives or doctors through DFID support | Cumulative | Bilateral | 500,000 | 400,000 |

### DFID Results Commitment – by 2014/15

| Results Indicators | Indicator type | Bilateral/ Multilateral/ Both | Results Achieved since baseline\* | Of which 2011/12\* | |--------------------|----------------|-------------------------------|----------------------------------|------------------| | **Providing clean water and sanitation** | | | | | | Give 15 million people access to clean drinking water | Number of people with sustainable access to clean drinking water sources through DFID support | Cumulative | Bilateral | 2,000,000 | 1,900,000 | | Improve access to sanitation for 25 million people | Number of people with sustainable access to an improved sanitation facility through DFID support | Cumulative | Bilateral | 2,000,000 | 2,000,000 | | Improve hygiene for 15 million to help stop people getting sick | Number of people with access to improved hygiene through DFID support to hygiene promotion | Cumulative | Bilateral | 7,400,000 | 6,600,000 | | **Making countries safer, fairer and free from conflict** | | | | | | Focus 30% of our aid on war torn and unstable countries by 2014 | Proportion of UK aid spent in Fragile and Conflict Afflicted States (FCAS) | Not applicable | Not applicable | To be reported at end 2014-15 | To be reported at end 2014-15 | | Support freer and fairer elections in 13 countries | Number of countries supported by DFID in freer & fairer elections | Cumulative | Bilateral | 5 | 4 | | Help ten million women to access justice through the courts, police and legal assistance | Number of women and girls with improved access to security and justice services through DFID support | Variable – depends on project type | Bilateral | 300,000 | 300,000 | | Support 40 million people to hold authorities to account | Number of people supported to have choice and control over their development and to hold decision makers to account. | Variable – depends on project type | Bilateral | 17,000,000 | 16,200,000 | | DFID Results Commitment – by 2014/15 | Results Indicators | Indicator type | Bilateral/ Multilateral/ Both | Results Achieved since baseline\* | Of which 2011/12\* | |--------------------------------------|--------------------|----------------|-------------------------------|---------------------------------|------------------| | **Combating climate change** | | | | | | | Help millions of poor people protect their lives and livelihoods from the impacts of climate change | Number of people supported by DFID funding to cope with the effects of climate change | Cumulative | Bilateral | 2,500,000 | 2,500,000 | | Support poor countries to develop in ways that avoid or reduce harmful emissions | See footnote[6] | Variable – depends on project type | Bilateral | Not currently available | Not currently available | | Help millions of poor people secure clean energy | Number of people with improved access to clean energy as a result of DFID funding | Cumulative | Bilateral | 600,000 | 600,000 | | Give more protection to the world’s forests and the 1.2 billion people who depend on them | Number of hectares where deforestation and degradation have been avoided | Cumulative | Bilateral | 3,000 | 3,000 |

- Results have been rounded to the nearest 100,000; with the exception of ‘Number of hectares where deforestation and degradation have been avoided’ (rounded to the nearest 1,000). Baseline years vary across countries – results have therefore been presented as both those achieved since baselines were set as of end March 2011 and also results specific to 2011/12.

[1] Final year indicators take the estimate in 2014/15 to measure performance against the results commitments set out in the Changing Lives document. It is generally expected that results will increase over time.

[2] Cumulative indicators sum results across years to measure performance against the results commitments set out in the Changing Lives document.

[3] Peak year indicators take the maximum value across years to measure performance against the results commitments. This is a prudent way to measure the number of unique individuals reached.

[4] Modelled indicators require an internationally agreed methodology to measure performance, currently under development. For Malaria, the World Health Organization has established an Evidence Review Group (ERG) on Malaria Burden Estimation Methodology which will review existing methodologies and work on a way forward to standardize methods that allow for consistent reporting of trends. Any recommended changes will be applied retrospectively to previous years (to 2000).

[5] Variable implies that the aim of measuring beneficiaries will depend on the nature of the programme or project.

[6] The commitment on supporting developing countries to develop in ways that avoid or reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions will be met through projects and programmes funded through the International Climate Fund (ICF). This commitment is expected to be met through a range of interventions making it challenging to set a single indicator for measuring progress. In turn, no target has been set against this commitment. Instead, a series of key performance indicators (KPIs) are being developed under the ICF that should collectively enable DFID to measure progress against this commitment.

[7] Estimated from the World Bank’s International Development Association and the Asian Development Bank’s results, using DFID’s share of funding.

[8] Estimated from GAVI’s results using DFID’s share of funding. ‘Results achieved since baseline’ relate to 2010 and 2011 calendar years, while ‘Of which 2011/12’ relates to 2011 calendar year.

[9] This result will be delivered through both bilateral and multilateral programmes. However results achieved to date include only the bilateral delivery channel. 1.16 Since these results commitments were set, DFID has set new ambitions in two areas and is committed to reaching higher levels of results for the following indicators. These will be achieved through both bilateral and multilateral results, whilst the current targets are for bilateral aid only. DFID will report on these new targets in future Annual Reports:

- Number of children under five and pregnant women reached through DFID’s nutrition-relevant programmes where a new target of 20 million was established. See DFID Nutrition paper: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/What-we-do/Key-Issues/Food-and-nutrition/Nutrition/

- Number of people with sustainable access to clean drinking water sources through DFID support; number of people with sustainable access to an improved sanitation facility through DFID support; number of people with access to improved hygiene through DFID support to hygiene promotion. Results achieved for these three indicators are often delivered through integrated services. DFID has calculated that at least 30 million people will receive water and/or sanitation and/or improved hygiene. The Secretary of State’s announcement at the Sanitation and Water for All High Level Meeting in Washington set out our new ambition to double this, and reach at least 60 million people. Please see: http://www.unicef.org/lac/media_23164.htm for further information.

How the UK measures results

1.17 DFID developed a results framework, published in autumn 2011, as a tool to monitor and report progress made in delivering the promised results. By measuring results we get a much better idea of what works and what does not so we can refine our programmes accordingly. This helps ensure that UK aid is focussed on the best value poverty reduction programmes. DFID has also published results against the framework as part of its commitment to transparency.

1.18 DFID’s results framework sets out the results and indicators which DFID will monitor and manage centrally. This framework has a number of uses, including to inform progress against many of the results commitments DFID has made publically – which include the results outlined within the ‘UK aid: Changing lives, delivering results’ document and ‘DFID’s Strategic Vision for Girls and Women’. Below are results set out against the framework, as well as a table of sex-disaggregated results achievements. A subset of the Level 2 results indicators are also monitored as part of DFID’s Business Plan (impact indicators) along with information relating to the costs of these results (input indicators).

1.19 DFID’s results framework is organised into four levels that capture each main stage through which money and activities are transformed into developing country results. Figure 1.2: DFID’s Results Framework

Level 1: Progress on key development outcomes

Level 2: DFID results

Level 3: Operational effectiveness

Level 4: Organisational efficiency

1.20 Further information on the results framework can be found at: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/About-us/How-we-measure-progress/DFID-Results-Framework/

Level 1: Progress on Key Development Outcomes

1.21 The first level of the results framework monitors key development outcomes in DFID’s priority countries. These outcomes cannot be attributed to DFID alone; they result from the collective action of developing countries and diverse development partners. The focus of Level 1 is progress against the internationally agreed Millennium Development Goal (MDG) standard indicators.

1.22 DFID’s Level 1 results indicators are listed in Annex C. They are a subset of MDG indicators with one additional DFID-specific indicator relating to children who can read with sufficient fluency. DFID has incorporated this indicator to reflect the importance of monitoring this key educational outcome in DFID’s priority countries. We are working with global partners to develop data systems and tools to measure progress against this indicator.

1.23 DFID is not yet reporting fully on the level 1 indicators in its results framework. In this Annual Report, as in previous years, we assess progress against the MDGs in two ways. Figure 1.3 and subsequent narrative show the UN’s summary of global progress on Millennium Development Goals. Chapter 2 provides DFID’s own assessment of MDG progress in each of our priority countries. We assess progress on a subset of seven MDG indicators. Both the UN and country assessments include some but not all of DFID’s level 1 indicators.

### Figure 1.3: Overview – Global Progress towards the MDGs

| Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger | Africa | Asia | Oceania | Latin America & Caribbean | Caucasus & Central Asia | |--------------------------------------------|-------|------|---------|--------------------------|------------------------| | Reduce extreme poverty by half | low poverty (GREEN) | very high poverty (AMBER) | high poverty (GREEN) | high poverty (GREEN) | very high poverty (AMBER) | low poverty (RED) (GREY) | moderate poverty (AMBER) | high poverty (AMBER) | | Productive and decent employment | very large deficit (AMBER) | very large deficit (AMBER) | moderate deficit (GREEN) | very large deficit (AMBER) | very large deficit (AMBER) | very large deficit (AMBER) | moderate deficit (AMBER) | large deficit (GREEN) | | Reduce hunger by half | low hunger (GREEN) | very high hunger (AMBER) | moderate hunger (GREEN) | moderate hunger (GREEN) | high hunger (RED) | moderate hunger (RED) | moderate hunger (GREEN) | moderate hunger (AMBER) |

### Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education

| Universal primary schooling | high enrolment (GREEN) | moderate enrolment (AMBER) | high enrolment (GREEN) | high enrolment (GREEN) | moderate enrolment (AMBER) | – (GREY) | high enrolment (AMBER) | high enrolment (RED) |

### Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women

| Equal girls’ enrolment in primary school | close to parity (GREEN) | close to parity (GREEN) | parity (GREEN) | parity (GREEN) | parity (GREEN) | close to parity (GREEN) | away from parity (RED) | parity (GREEN) | parity (GREEN) | | Women’s share of paid employment | low share (AMBER) | medium share (AMBER) | high share (GREEN) | medium share (AMBER) | low share (AMBER) | low share (AMBER) | medium share (AMBER) | high share (GREEN) | high share (GREEN) | | Women’s equal representation in national parliaments | low representation (AMBER) | moderate representation (AMBER) | low representation (AMBER) | low representation (AMBER) | very low representation (AMBER) | very low representation (AMBER) | moderate representation (AMBER) | low representation (AMBER) |

### Goal 4: Reduce child mortality

| Reduce mortality of under five-year-olds by two thirds | low mortality (GREEN) | high mortality (RED) | low mortality (GREEN) | low mortality (GREEN) | moderate mortality (AMBER) | low mortality (GREEN) | low mortality (GREEN) | low mortality (AMBER) |

### Goal 5: Improve maternal health

| Reduce maternal mortality by three quarters | moderate mortality (AMBER) | very high mortality (RED) | low mortality (GREEN) | moderate mortality (AMBER) | high mortality (GREEN) | low mortality (RED) | low mortality (AMBER) | low mortality (AMBER) | | Access to reproductive health | low access (AMBER) | high access (GREEN) | moderate access (AMBER) | moderate access (AMBER) | low access (AMBER) | high access (GREEN) | moderate access (AMBER) | moderate access (AMBER) |

### Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases

| Halt and begin to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS | low incidence (RED) | high incidence (GREEN) | low incidence (AMBER) | low incidence (AMBER) | low incidence (AMBER) | low incidence (AMBER) | intermediate incidence (GREEN) | low incidence (AMBER) | low incidence (AMBER) | | Halt and reverse spread of tuberculosis | low mortality (RED) | high mortality (GREEN) | moderate mortality (AMBER) | high mortality (GREEN) | moderate mortality (AMBER) | low mortality (GREEN) | moderate mortality (AMBER) | low mortality (AMBER) |

### Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability

| Reverse loss of forests | low forest cover (GREEN) | medium forest cover (AMBER) | medium forest cover (AMBER) | high forest cover (RED) | medium forest cover (AMBER) | low forest cover (RED) | high forest cover (AMBER) | low forest cover (RED) | | Halve proportion of population without improved drinking water | high coverage (GREEN) | low coverage (AMBER) | moderate coverage (GREEN) | moderate coverage (GREEN) | moderate coverage (GREEN) | high coverage (AMBER) | low coverage (RED) | high coverage (AMBER) | | Halve proportion of population without sanitation | moderate coverage (GREEN) | very low coverage (AMBER) | low coverage (GREEN) | very low coverage (AMBER) | low coverage (GREEN) | moderate coverage (RED) | moderate coverage (AMBER) | moderate coverage (AMBER) | | Improve the lives of slum-dwellers | moderate proportion (GREEN) | very high proportion (RED) | moderate proportion (GREEN) | high proportion (GREEN) | moderate proportion (RED) | moderate proportion (AMBER) | moderate proportion (AMBER) | moderate proportion (AMBER) |

### Goal 8: Develop a global partnership for development

| Internet users | high usage (GREEN) | low usage (AMBER) | high usage (GREEN) | moderate usage (AMBER) | low usage (AMBER) | high usage (GREEN) | low usage (AMBER) | high usage (GREEN) | high usage (GREEN) |

**Key to colour coding in tables:**

- **Green** = Target already met or expected to be met by 2015.
- **Amber** = Progress insufficient to reach the target if prevailing trends persist.
- **Red** = No progress or deterioration.
- **Grey** = Missing or insufficient data.

Note that the descriptive text (e.g. high poverty) listed against the indicators in Figure 1.3 relates to the current status whilst the Red-Amber-Green status relates to the relative progress that has been made.

______________________________________________________________________

2 The Millennium Development Goals Progress Chart 2011, United Nations.

### Narrative around MDG progress

#### MDG 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

**Target 1.A: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than $1 a day.**

Global Progress: Met

According to the latest estimates, the first MDG target was reached ahead of schedule in 2010, as the proportion of people living in absolute poverty fell to 21% (half the level in 1990), despite the slowdown in the global economy from 2008. For the first time, between 2005 and 2008 the poverty rate fell in all regions of the developing world (Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and eastern Europe). However, this still leaves some 1.2 billion living in absolute poverty: of whom it is thought 44% live in South Asia, 30% in Sub-Saharan Africa and 22% in East Asia.

1 In 2008, new data led to a revised definition of the international poverty line as $1.25 per day (2005 purchasing power parity). This new definition has been applied to earlier estimates to provide revised, comparable poverty estimates for three-yearly intervals from 1990 to 2008. The numbers and percentages here all relate to the new, $1.25 per day definition of absolute poverty.

**Target 1.B: Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people.**

Global Progress: Lagging

Three years since the onset of the global economic crisis, labour markets have yet to recover, despite positive rates of economic growth in most developing countries. The percentage of the population of working age in the developing world who are in employment remains just under 63% since 2009, and slightly lower than the rate in 2000. Similarly, while the proportion of workers living below the poverty line (one in five) continues to fall, the rate of progress has levelled off since 2007. Wide gaps remain in women's and young people's access to paid and decent work.

**Target 1.C: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger.**

Global Progress: Lagging

Compared to progress in reducing monetary poverty, progress in improving calorie intake and nutrition outcomes has been much slower. Amongst children in the developing world aged under five years, nearly one in four (23%) is underweight. This is a small reduction compared to 1990 (30%). Progress has been slowest, and the problem remains greatest, in South Asia (where 43% of children were underweight in 2009) and Sub-Saharan Africa (22%).

#### MDG 2: Achieve universal primary education

**Target 2: Ensure that by 2015 children everywhere, boys and girls alike will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling.**

Global Progress: Lagging

Across the developing world, primary enrolment is rising slowly and now stands at 89%. Progress varies by region, with Sub-Saharan Africa rising by 18 percentage points since 1999, though it still lies behind the rest of the world with just 76% net enrolment. Being female, poor and in a conflict affected country greatly increases the likelihood of being out of school. To meet the global target by 2015 the pace needs to accelerate and efforts need to shift to the hardest to reach children and quality of schooling.

#### MDG 3: Promote gender equality and empower women

**Target 3: Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education, preferably by 2005 and in all levels of education no later than 2015.**

Global Progress: Lagging

Boys are still more likely than girls to attend primary school in all regions except East Asia, where girls now outnumber boys. In Sub-Saharan Africa there are now 92 girls enrolled in primary for every 100 boys, but just 79 girls per 100 boys in secondary school. Across all developing regions, there are 96 girls per 100 boys in primary schools, a rise of five percentage points since 1999. Girls are becoming more equal when it comes to accessing education, but the averages mask wide disparities across and within regions. MDG 4: Reduce child mortality

Target 4: Between 1990 and 2015, reduce the under-five mortality rate by two-thirds.

Global Progress: Lagging

Steady progress is being made in reducing child deaths. Globally, the mortality rate for children under-five has declined by a third, from 89 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1990 to 60 in 2009, equivalent to 12,000 fewer children dying each day. The highest under-five mortality levels continue to be found in sub-Saharan Africa where one in eight children die before the age of five. The target can be reached, but only with accelerated action to eliminate the leading killers in children – diarrhoea, malaria and pneumonia – underpinned by efforts to improve childhood nutrition and post-natal care.

MDG 5: Improve maternal health

Target 5.A: Between 1990 and 2015, reduce the maternal mortality ratio by three quarters.

Global Progress: Lagging

Significant progress has been made in reducing maternal deaths, however maternal mortality remains a major burden and the MDG target remains far off. In 2008 the maternal mortality ratio was 290 per 100,000 live births, a 34% reduction from 1990. The presence of a trained health worker during delivery, practicing within a functioning health system, is crucial in reducing maternal deaths. Overall, the proportion of deliveries attended by skilled personnel rose between 1990 and 2009 from 55 to 65%, but coverage remains low in sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia, where the majority of maternal deaths occur.

Target 5.B: Achieve, by 2015, universal access to reproductive health.

Global Progress: Lagging

Use of contraception in developing countries among women of childbearing age who are married or in a union increased from 52% to 61% between 1990 and 2008. Amongst this group, an estimated 215 million women have an unmet need for family planning. Progress slowed over 2000-2008, and access is particularly poor among young people. Over coming decades, demand for family planning will likely increase, based on unmet need and a rise in the number of people of reproductive age. However funding for family planning services and supplies has not risen at the same rate and the MDG target remains significantly off-track.

MDG 6: To combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases

Target 6.A: To have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the spread of HIV and AIDS.

Global Progress: Lagging

The world has made huge progress against the HIV epidemic in the thirty years since AIDS was first identified. The epidemic has stabilised in most regions. Globally, new infections have fallen by 19% since 1999 and the price of first-line AIDS drugs by 99% in 10 years. But significant challenges remain. There are over 34 million people living with HIV with no cure or effective vaccine in sight. There are over 7,400 new HIV infections every day – 2 for every person newly put on treatment, and globally HIV funding is flat-lining.

Target 6.B: Achieve universal access to treatment for HIV/AIDS by 2010 for all those who need it.

Global Progress: Lagging

There has been admirable progress although the 2010 target was not achieved and according to the 2009 WHO new treatment guidelines, around 10 million in need of treatment are not getting it. However, nearly 7 million people are on antiretroviral treatment – a more than 10-fold increase over five years and for many HIV is now a manageable chronic condition. 700,000 AIDS related deaths in 2010 were estimated to have been averted, and 48% of pregnant women living with HIV received effective antiretroviral medicines to prevent new HIV infections in children.

### MDG 6: To combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases

**Target 6.C: By 2015, to have halted and begun to reverse the incidence of malaria and other major disease.**

Global Progress: On track

The world is on track to meet the target for malaria and TB. However, progress in tackling malaria is mixed across and within affected countries. There were an estimated 216 million cases and at least 655,000 deaths due to malaria in 2010. Since 2000, malaria deaths have reduced by one third in Africa; outside Africa, 35 of the 53 countries affected have reduced cases by 50%. Emerging resistance to drugs and insecticides threaten progress. TB deaths fell to 1.4 million (2010), from 1.8 million (2003). Multi-drug resistant TB and TB-HIV co-infection might prevent future progress.

### MDG 7: Ensure environmental sustainability

**Target 7.A: Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes and reverse the loss of environmental resources.**

Global Progress: Lagging\*

The rate of annual deforestation has decreased from 16 million to 13 million hectares since the 1990s. However much of the continued loss is in the tropics where the forests have the greatest value to biodiversity, climate and livelihoods. Global marine fisheries remain under severe stress with only 15% of fish stocks at healthy levels, with overfishing, pollution and loss of habitats the most serious pressures. Global greenhouse gas emissions in 2008 were 38 per cent above the 1990 level, increasing from 21.8 billion to 30.1 billion metric tonnes (latest available figures).

- this target is non-quantified and few of its indicators are routinely measured.

**Target 7.B: Reduce biodiversity loss, achieving, by 2010, a significant reduction in the rate of loss.**

Global progress: Target missed in 2010

Despite an overall increase in protected ecosystems, biodiversity is still in decline. New targets were adopted in 2010 aimed at expanding global protected areas.

**Target 7.C: By 2015, halve the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation.**

Global Progress: Water on track

The world, except sub-Saharan Africa, will exceed the MDG target of halving the proportion of the population without access to safe drinking water. But more than 1 in 10 people may still be without access in 2015.

Global Progress: Sanitation lagging

At current rates of progress, it will take until 2049 to provide 77% of the global population with improved sanitation. Some 2.6 billion people globally were not using an improved form of sanitation in 2008. Rural populations are disadvantaged when it comes to improved sanitation, though disparities with urban areas are decreasing.

**Target 7.D: By 2020 achieve significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers.**

Global Progress: Met

Growing urbanization is outpacing slum improvements. From 2000 to 2010, the share of urban residents in the developing world living in slums declined from 39 per cent to 33 per cent. More than 200 million of these people gained access to either improved water, sanitation or durable and less crowded housing. However, in absolute terms, the number of slum dwellers continues to grow, due to the pace of urbanization. An estimated 828 million urban residents live in slum conditions compared to 657 million in 1990. In 2010, the highest prevalence of slum conditions was in sub-Saharan Africa. MDG 8: Develop a global partnership for development

Target 8.A: Address the special needs of the least developed countries, landlocked countries and small island developing states.

Global Progress: Lagging

Despite aid to developing countries being at a record high in real terms, globally they are still falling short on promises made in 2005. When comparing the 2010 outcome with pledges made in 2005, there was a shortfall of $19 billion. Just over $1 billion of this can be attributed to lower-than-expected levels of gross national income due to the economic crisis. The remaining $18 billion gap was due to the failure of donors to meet their commitments.

Target 8.B: Develop further an open, rule-based, predictable, non-discriminatory trading and financial system.

Global progress: Lagging

Preferential market access granted to the least developed countries and developing countries remained relatively unchanged from the levels of the previous five years. This is despite the fears of renewed protectionism at the beginning of the economic crisis in 2008.

Target 8.C: Deal comprehensively with developing countries’ debt.

Global Progress: This target is not explicitly quantified and progress is difficult to measure. However a sharp drop in exports in 2009 has interrupted the downward trend of developing countries’ debt service ratios.

In 2009 the ratio of public debt service to exports increased for all developing regions except Southern Asia, Western Asia and Oceania, the impact being most pronounced for the small island developing states and the least developed countries. This ratio still remains significantly lower than the 2000 baseline.

Target 8.D: In cooperation with the private sector, make available the benefits of new technologies, especially information and communications.

Global Progress:

By the end of 2010, 90% of the world’s inhabitants were covered by mobile cellular signal and more than 2 billion people worldwide were using the internet. However, penetration levels in the developing world remain relatively low. Beyond basic voice services mobile technology is offering innovative applications in the areas of business, health and education.

Level 2: DFID Results

What is DFID’s contribution to development results?

1.24 The Level 2 indicators measure the outputs that can be directly linked to DFID programmes and projects. DFID has selected a range of indicators which it believes will have some influence on key development outcomes including the MDG indicators. The indicators have been selected primarily through an analysis of expected results outlined in individual DFID country operational plans. They reflect those outputs where it is possible to aggregate results across different countries. They do not reflect all the results that DFID is delivering. Results that are vital to each country’s development may not be covered here simply because they cannot be aggregated across countries. DFID has developed methodological guidance on each indicator to help ensure consistency of measurement across countries and permit meaningful aggregation of results. These methodological notes will be made available on the DFID website.

1.25 To ensure a fuller representation of DFID’s work, it is important that DFID considers results from both its bilateral and multilateral portfolio – for this reason we monitor and report both types of results at Level 2. Results Achieved through the Bilateral Programme

1.26 Table B sets out the indicators we use to measure some of the outputs from DFID’s bilateral programme, many of which are in turn used to inform progress against public results commitments. There are 25 indicators in total. For three indicators, we are working with international partners to agree a methodology to measure them and do not have data yet.

Table B: Results Achieved through the Bilateral Programme

| Pillar | Results Indicators | Indicator type | Results Achieved since baseline | Achieved In 2011/12\* | |---------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|---------------------------------|----------------------| | **Wealth Creation** | Number of people with access to financial services as a result of DFID support[2] | Final year | 11,900,000 | 11,800,000 | | | Number of people supported through DFID programmes to improve their rights to land and property | Cumulative | 1,100,000 | 800,000 | | **Poverty, Vulnerability, Nutrition & Hunger** | Number of children under five and pregnant women reached through DFID’s nutrition-relevant programmes | Peak Year | 2,700,000 | 2,700,000 | | | Number of people benefiting from DFID-supported cash transfer programmes | Peak Year | 3,400,000 | 3,400,000 | | | Number of people achieving food security through DFID support | Final year | 400,000 | 300,000 | | **Education** | Number of children supported by DFID in primary education (per annum) | Peak Year | 5,300,000 | 2,900,000 | | | Number of children supported by DFID in lower secondary education (per annum) | Peak Year | 600,000 | 200,000 | | | Number of children completing primary education supported by DFID (per annum) | Cumulative | 500,000 | 300,000 | | **Malaria** | Number of insecticide treated bed-nets distributed with DFID support | Cumulative | 12,200,000 | 11,000,000 | | | Number of malaria specific deaths per 1,000 persons per year | Modelled | Not currently available | Not currently available | | **Reproductive, maternal and neo-natal health** | Number of births delivered with the help of nurses, midwives or doctors through DFID support | Cumulative | 500,000 | 400,000 | | | Number of additional women using modern methods of family planning through DFID support | Final year | 1,000,000 | 600,000 | | | Number of maternal lives saved through DFID support | Modelled | Not currently available | Not currently available | | | Number of neo-natal lives saved through DFID support | Modelled | Not currently available | Not currently available | | Pillar | Results Indicators | Indicator type | Results Achieved since baseline[^1] | Achieved In 2011/12\* | |--------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|--------------------------------------|----------------------| | Water and sanitation | Number of people with sustainable access to clean drinking water sources through DFID support | Cumulative | 2,000,000 | 1,900,000 | | | Number of people with sustainable access to an improved sanitation facility through DFID support | Cumulative | 2,000,000 | 2,000,000 | | | Number of people with access to improved hygiene through DFID support to hygiene promotion | Cumulative | 7,400,000 | 6,600,000 | | Humanitarian and Emergency Response | Number of people reached with emergency food assistance through DFID support | Cumulative | 6,000,000 | 5,900,000 | | Governance and Security | Number of countries supported by DFID in freer & fairer elections | Cumulative | 5 | 4 | | | Number of people who vote in elections supported by DFID | Cumulative | 76,900,000 | 68,300,000 | | | Number of people supported to have choice and control over their development and to hold decision makers to account | Variable – depends on project type | 17,000,000 | 16,200,000 | | | Number of women and girls with improved access to security and justice services through DFID support | Variable – depends on project type | 300,000 | 300,000 | | Climate Change | Number of people supported by DFID funding to cope with the effects of climate change | Cumulative | 2,500,000 | 2,500,000 | | | Number of people with improved access to clean energy as a result of DFID funding | Cumulative | 600,000 | 600,000 | | | Number of hectares where deforestation and degradation have been avoided | Cumulative | 3,000 | 3,000 |

- Results have been rounded to the nearest 100,000; with the exception of ‘Number of hectares where deforestation and degradation have been avoided’ (rounded to the nearest 1,000).

\[^1\]: Baseline years vary across countries – results have therefore been presented as both those achieved since baselines were set as of end March 2011 and also results specific to 2011/12.

\[^2\]: Final year indicators take the result achieved in 2014/15 to measures performance against the results commitments set out in the Changing Lives document. It is generally expected that estimates will increase over time.

\[^3\]: Cumulative indicators take the sum of results achieved across years to measure performance against the results commitments set out in the Changing Lives document.

\[^4\]: Peak year indicators measure performance against the results commitments in the Changing Lives document by taking the maximum result achieved across years. This is a prudent way to measure the number of unique individuals reached.

\[^5\]: Modelled indicators require an internationally agreed methodology to measure performance. For Malaria, the World Health Organization has established an Evidence Review Group (ERG) on Malaria Burden Estimation Methodology which will review existing methodologies and work on a way forward to standardize methods that allow for consistent reporting of trends. Any recommended changes will be applied retrospectively to previous years (to 2000).

\[^6\]: Variable implies that that the aim of measuring unique beneficiaries will depend on the nature of the programme or project. Sex disaggregation of bilateral results achievements

1.27 The UK puts girls and women at the heart of our development assistance. The results we have committed to achieve are outlined in DFID’s Strategic Vision for Girls and Women (available at http://www.dfid.gov.uk/iwd2011) and included in the DFID results framework. This vision focuses our work in four areas, namely: to delay first pregnancy and support safe childbirth; to get economic assets direct to girls and women; to get girls through secondary school; and to prevent violence against girls and women.

1.28 Table C below presents the results indicators which underpin the results commitments within DFID’s Strategic Vision for Girls and Women. Results achievements have been presented both in total and by sex, which will allow progress against these commitments to be assessed. We aim to reduce the proportion of results where a breakdown is not available.

Table C: Bilateral Results Achievements, disaggregated by sex

| Pillar | Results Indicators | Total Achieved[1] | Male[1] | Female[1] | Male/female breakdown not available | |---------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|---------|-----------|-------------------------------------| | **Wealth Creation** | Number of people with access to financial services as a result of DFID support | 11,900,000 | 140,000 | 740,000 | 10,970,000 | | | Number of people supported through DFID programmes to improve their rights to land and property | 1,100,000 | 210,000 | 210,000 | 660,000 | | **Education** | Number of children supported by DFID in primary education (per annum) | 5,300,000 | 2,730,000 | 2,540,000 | 0 | | | Number of children supported by DFID in lower secondary education (per annum) | 600,000 | 320,000 | 260,000 | 0 | | | Number of children completing primary education supported by DFID (per annum) | 500,000 | 260,000 | 260,000 | 0 | | **Reproductive, maternal and neo-natal health** | Number of births delivered with the help of nurses, midwives or doctors through DFID support | 500,000 | | | Not applicable | | | Number of additional women using modern methods of family planning through DFID support | 1,000,000 | | | Not applicable | | | Number of maternal lives saved through DFID support | | | | Not currently available | | **Governance and Security** | Number of women and girls with improved access to security and justice services through DFID support | 300,000 | | | Not applicable |

[1] Total results achieved have been rounded to the nearest 100,000. Male/female breakdowns have been rounded to the nearest 10,000. The sum of individual columns may not equal totals due to rounding. 1.29 The remaining bilateral indicators are sex-disaggregated where relevant and possible, given data limitations, ensuring as much information as possible is available to assess progress against our commitment to improve the lives of girls and women.

**Results Achieved through the Multilateral Programme**

1.30 A total of 44% of DFID’s programme expenditure occurs through central or core funding to multilateral organisations. It is therefore critical to monitor these partners’ contributions to poverty reduction and development. The multilateral element of the DFID Results Framework captures the key outputs delivered by DFID’s partners, taken from partners’ own results reporting. To illustrate the significance of UK funding to partners’ core resources, UK funding shares are presented alongside results.

1.31 Representative headline results from 19 multilateral organisations to which the UK provides core funding are presented in Table D below. In addition, the UK funds other multilateral partners whose results are not shown in Table D. These organisations either have specialist mandates that do not lend themselves well to reporting quantifiable output results annually, or have less fully developed reporting systems that prevent the generation of headline results. A set of results for this group is provided in Table E below. The Climate Investment Funds (CIFs), which represent a significant level of funding, are not yet included, as robust output indicators are still in the process of being developed. Across the board, DFID is working with its multilateral partners to strengthen systems for reporting results. This includes efforts to understand better how outputs translate to improved outcomes on the ground for the world’s poorest people. Chapter 3: Delivering through Multilateral Organisations reports on progress on multilateral reform.

1.32 Output results typically vary on a year-by-year basis. Fluctuations may arise due to normal variations in programming, particularly the level of demand from beneficiary countries. In certain circumstances, such as rapid humanitarian responses and short-term health interventions, this demand for support varies considerably.

### Table D: Headline Results Achieved by Multilateral Organisations

| Indicator(1) | Multilateral organisation | Latest result(2)(3)(5) | Latest reporting period | DFID’s contribution as a % of total core funding | Previous result | Previous reporting period | |--------------|---------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|----------------|--------------------------| | **Wealth creation** | | | | | | | | Number assisted with microfinance | AsDB | 1,125,000 | 2011 | 5 | 42,000 | 2010 | | Micro/ small/ medium productive enterprises financed | IADB | 40,000 | 2011 | 2 | 92,000 | 2010 | | Number of active borrowers in micro-finance | IFAD | 2,700,000 | 2010 | 7 | 4,800,000 | 2009 | | Number of voluntary savers under micro-finance programme | IFAD | 7,860,000 | 2010 | 7 | 8,400,000 | 2009 | | Number of housing loans | IFC | 1,900,000 | 2010 | 5 | – | – | | Number of microfinance loans | IFC | 8,000,000 | 2010 | 5 | 9,740,000 | 2009 | | Number of jobs created | PIDG | 182,000 | 2002-mid-2012 | 52 | 14,000 | 2002-2011 | | **Poverty, vulnerability, nutrition and hunger** | | | | | | | | Farmers given access to improved agricultural services and investment | IADB | 2,522,000 | 2011 | 2 | 980,000 | 2010 | | Number of people receiving services from International Fund for Agricultural Development supported projects | IFAD | 43,100,000 | 2010 | 7 | 36,600,000 | 2009 | | Number of people trained in crop production practices/technologies | IFAD | 4,510,000 | 2010 | 7 | 4,100,000 | 2009 | | Number of malnourished children provided with special nutritional support | WFP | 11,100,000 | 2011 | 4 | 8,500,000 | 2010 | | Number of people provided with food | WFP | 99,100,000 | 2011 | 4 | 109,200,000 | 2010 | | Number of school children receiving school meal and take home rations | WFP | 23,200,000 | 2011 | 4 | 21,100,000 | 2010 | | Number of women and children provided with food and nutritional support | WFP | 82,900,000 | 2011 | 4 | 89,000,000 | 2010 | | **Health** | | | | | | | | Number of children immunised against preventable disease | GAVI | 37,300,000 | 2011 | 33 | 31,000,000 | 2010 | | Number of HIV positive women provided with treatment to prevent transmission to their babies | GFATM | 300,000 | 2011 | 17 | 210,000 | 2010 | | Number of insecticide treated bednets distributed | GFATM(4) | 70,000,000 | 2011 | 17 | 56,000,000 | 2010 | | Number of people provided with treatment for AIDS | GFATM | 300,000 | 2011 | 17 | 500,000 | 2010 | | Number of tuberculosis cases detected and treated | GFATM | 900,000 | 2011 | 17 | 1,700,000 | 2010 | | Number of children immunised | IDA | 85,000,000 | average 2008-2010 | 11 | – | – | | People provided with a basic package of health, nutrition or population services | IDA | 13,000,000 | average 2008-2010 | 11 | – | – | | Number of female condoms procured | UNFPA | 6,207,000 | 2011 | 6 | 8,360,000 | 2010 | | Number of children benefitting from two doses of vitamin A supplement | UNICEF(5) | 350,000,000 | 2011 | 3 | 293,000,000 | 2010 | | Children benefitting from child-friendly HIV/ AIDS medicines | UNITAID | 362,000 | 2007-2010 | 20 | 285,000 | 2007-2009 | | Children supplied with TB treatments | UNITAID | 915,000 | 2007-2010 | 20 | 668,000 | 2007-2009 | | **Education** | | | | | | | | Number of teachers trained | AsDB | 153,000 | 2011 | 5 | 30,000 | 2010 | | Number of teachers trained | IADB | 61,000 | 2011 | 2 | 80,000 | 2010 | | Number of teachers recruited or trained | IDA | 900,000 | average 2008-2010 | 11 | – | – | | Number of education ministry officials trained and coached in strategic planning and management | UNESCO | 1,000 | 2011 | 7 | – | – | | Indicator(1) | Multilateral organisation | Latest result(2)(3)(5) | Latest reporting period | DFID’s contribution as a % of total core funding | Previous result | Previous reporting period | |-------------|--------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|----------------|--------------------------| | Water and sanitation | | | | | | | | Number of people with new or improved access to water and sanitation | AfDB | 12,483,000 | 2009-2011 | 9 | 8,547,000 | 2008-2010 | | Number of households provided with new water supply | AsDB | 7,309,000 | 2011 | 5 | 1,292,000 | 2010 | | Households with access to water supply and sanitation | CDB | 10,000 | 2011 | 27 | 5,000 | 2010 | | Households with new or upgraded sanitary connections | IADB | 87,000 | 2011 | 2 | 49,000 | 2010 | | Number of people with access to clean drinking water | IDA | 31,000,000 | average 2008-2010 | 11 | – | – | | Number of people with access to improved sanitation facilities | IDA | 1,600,000 | average 2008-2010 | 11 | – | – | | Infrastructure | | | | | | | | People with improved access to transport | AfDB | 10,805,000 | 2009-2011 | 9 | 15,974,000 | 2008-2010 | | People benefiting from new electricity connections | AfDB | 6,657,000 | 2009-2011 | 9 | 16,526,000 | 2008-2010 | | New households connected to electricity | AsDB | 413,000 | 2011 | 5 | 1,738,000 | 2010 | | People with access to new or improved roads | AsDB | 175,387,000 | 2011 | 5 | 31,808,000 | 2010 | | Beneficiaries of road projects | CDB | 72,000 | 2011 | 27 | 16,000 | 2010 | | Roads constructed and rehabilitated (km) | IDA | 32,000 | average 2008-2010 | 11 | – | – | | Roads constructed/rehabilitated (km) | IFAD | 18,000 | 2010 | 7 | 21,000 | 2009 | | People impacted with improved/new power supply | PIDG | 12,600,000 | 2002-mid-2012 | 52 | 2,270,000 | 2009-2011 | | Humanitarian | | | | | | | | Number of people benefiting from disaster preparedness activities | ECHO | 12,000,000 | 2011 | 14 | 35,000,000 | 2010 | | Number of people provided with humanitarian assistance | ECHO | 117,000,000 | 2011 | 14 | 94,000,000 | 2010 | | Number of civilians provided with essential household items | ICRC | 4,942,000 | 2011 | 7 | 2,480,000 | 2010 | | Number of detainees visited | ICRC | 540,000 | 2011 | 7 | 500,000 | 2010 | | Number of migrants, internally displaced persons, refugees and other vulnerable groups receiving emergency, migration and durable support (e.g. shelter) | IOM | 11,000,000 | 2011 | 7 | – | – | | Number of displaced people (refugees and internally displaced people) receiving protection or assistance | UNHCR | 25,878,000 | 2011 | 3 | 25,200,000 | 2010 | | Number of children reached through humanitarian response | UNICEF | 36,000,000 | 2011 | 3 | – | – |

[1] Sources for all indicators can be found in Annex C.2. [2] Where results are reported to the nearest million they have been presented in this way; otherwise results have been rounded down to nearest thousand. [3] All AsDB results are based upon the year in which the Project Completion Report (PCR) was completed; these annual output results are subject to significant fluctuation. [4] GFATM does not engage in direct procurement activities; instead these are managed under the full responsibility of grant recipients. However, GFATM provides mechanisms to promote safe and cost-effective procurement of health products. [5] All results from IDA are calculated as an annual average of the past three years; these years are 2008, 2009, and 2010. [6] UNICEF result is delivered through UNICEF and its partners.

### Table E: Additional multilateral organisation results\*

| Multilateral organisation | Result | |---------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | **UN organisations (excluding humanitarian) and Commonwealth** | | | Commonwealth Secretariat | Over the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, Commonwealth teams were deployed to observe and assess elections in five countries – Zambia, Cameroon, The Gambia, St Lucia, and Guyana. There, regular interactions with electoral and political stakeholders, as well as the media, ensured a high profile and comprehensive assessment of the conduct of elections. In all five countries, there was an improvement in the conduct of elections compared to previous polls. | | FAO | FAO provides technical expertise to governments in the most vulnerable countries to put in place food security early warning systems. These enable governments to respond more effectively to looming food shortages, reducing the need for large-scale humanitarian responses. As a result of FAO’s support, 25 countries had early warning systems in place by the end of 2011 – up from 16 in 2009. Millions of people are now better protected from hunger crises. | | OHCHR | Over 2010-11, OHCHR actions contributed to the ratification of one or more international or regional human rights treaties in more than 70 countries. For example, 33 countries ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and 18 countries ratified its Optional Protocol (OP); 12 countries ratified the OP to the Convention against Torture, and 12 states ratified the Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance. | | UNAIDS | UNAIDS promotes gender equality in national responses to HIV, to improve uptake of HIV-related services for better health outcomes. By 2010 UNAIDS’ work had contributed towards 137 countries including women as a specific component of their national multisectoral HIV strategy. | | UNDP | In 2011 UNDP provided electoral cycle assistance to 58 countries to help them introduce or strengthen transparent democratic governance. In Africa alone, 16 countries held national elections all of which benefitted from UNDP assistance. | | UN Women | In 2011, UN Women helped 18 countries incorporate gender equality and women’s empowerment priorities in national planning documents and budgets. This contributed towards increased resources for gender equality in six countries, with combined budgetary increases of over US$1.5bn in 2011. | | WHO | WHO prequalifies (evaluates and inspects) medicines, vaccines, ingredients, standards, and medicine control laboratories to ensure that they are of good quality. In 2011, 64 per cent of the global infant population was immunised with vaccines prequalified by WHO. | | **European Union** | | | EU | Over the 2004-11 timeframe, the EU’s work in water and sanitation has granted more than 32 million people to gain access to improved water supply and has given more than 9 million people access to sanitation facilities. This has drastically improved hygiene and has reduced the burden of communicable disease. In 2008, the EU established a Food Facility to provide protection to 50 countries most vulnerable to escalating food prices. Illustrations of results include the treatment of 30,000 severely malnourished children in Mali and support to 176,000 poor farmers in Zimbabwe. |

- The results reported in Table E have in some cases been sourced from documents that are internal to partners. As far as possible, each result typifies the partner’s core work and is fully attributable to the partner’s unique effort. Where this latter condition is not met, the partner has at least formed a critical part of the delivery. | Multilateral organisation | Result | |---------------------------|--------| | EU continued | The EU set up an Energy Facility in 2005 to contribute to the goal of increased access to energy services by the rural poor. Between 2007 and 2011, 2.1 million people have been equipped with modern energy services. As a consequence, beneficiaries have experienced improvements in living conditions through (e.g.) enhanced cooking facilities, regular water supply, and better functioning health facilities. Under the EU's flagship Sustainable Energy for All initiative, a new high voltage electricity transmission system covering 950km has been built through Namibia; this is bringing cheaper and more reliable energy to more than 230 million people in the southern African region. Countries which are benefiting directly from this project include Angola, Zambia, Zimbabwe and DRC. |

| Humanitarian organisations | | |---------------------------|--------| | CERF | In 2011, CERF funds helped more than 29 million people access clean water, sanitation and hygiene in 27 countries, supported an estimated 9.6 million people in 25 countries with life-saving nutritional interventions and provided food assistance to some 11 million people affected by emergencies in 30 countries. 1.6 million people were supported across the Sahel region alone. | | GFDRR | By 2011, 66% of GFDRR's priority countries had earmarked Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) allocations within their annual and medium term development budgets. 58 per cent of GFDRR's priority countries had invested in strengthening their early warning and emergency preparedness capacity (e.g. Yemen, Mozambique, and Ghana). | | IFRC | In 2011, 3,931,997 people volunteered over four hours per year across IFRC's National Societies. 66% of IFRC's emergency operations had beneficiary participation built into programmes and services. | | OCHA | In 2010 OCHA's response to the Haiti earthquake and Pakistan floods demonstrated the agency's ability to quickly deploy staff to new crises and coordinate the response. At least 75% of OCHA's initial emergency response deployments were within one week of both disasters being announced. | | PBF | During 2011, the PBF provided funds to 18 UN agencies across fourteen conflict countries countries to deliver projects vital to peacebuilding. Activities included helping former combatants reintegrate into civilian life in Nepal & Democratic Republic of Congo and creating jobs to help stabilize violence-prone communities in Haiti. Independent evaluations found that 35% of assessed projects significantly contributed to peacebuilding outcomes. |

| Global Funds organisations | | |---------------------------|--------| | GPE | In 2011, funding provided by GPE to partner countries was sufficient to support approximately 4 million boys and girls in primary education. |

| Environment organisations | | |---------------------------|--------| | GEF | In 2010, GEF results for the 4th replenishment (2006-10) included improved management of 336 million hectares of land in protected areas. GEF4 projects also contributed to reducing 813 million tons of carbon dioxide through more efficient energy generation and use. These projects contribute to local benefits as well as global environmental benefits. | Level 3: Measuring Operational Effectiveness of DFID

1.33 Level 3 of the DFID Results Framework monitors how well the department manages itself to deliver the results required for development and ensure value for money. DFID is reporting this dataset in the Annual Report for the first time. Whilst work will continue to refine a set of key indicators to track overall effectiveness of DFID operations, the department will seek to report at least annually against the following performance areas:

- **Portfolio quality** – a measure of the extent to which DFID’s interventions are on track to deliver their expected outputs and outcomes
- **Pipeline delivery** – data on DFID’s pipeline of programmes either approved or under design to help assess whether DFID has sufficient plans in place to ensure that it will achieve its results commitments
- **Monitoring and evaluation** – data on the extent to which DFID is actively reviewing its programmes and learning lessons for the future
- **Structural reform** – data to assess how well DFID is delivering against its corporate objectives and areas of Coalition priority.

Portfolio Quality

1.34 DFID’s index of portfolio quality measures how well its portfolio of projects are on track to deliver expected development outputs and outcomes. Up until December 2011, projects were scored annually on a scale of 1-5 based on the likelihood of the project achieving its expected outcome. The portfolio quality index is computed by aggregating individual project budgets which are weighted on the basis of how well they scored at the time of their last review and expressed as a percentage of the total portfolio budget. A portfolio quality score of 75% means that the outcomes of DFID’s portfolio of projects are largely expected to be achieved.

1.35 Figure 1.4 demonstrates the trend in portfolio quality since April 2010. As of the end of December 2011, DFID’s portfolio quality index was recorded as 74.1%. The score has fluctuated only marginally over the last year but represents an improvement from 72.8% recorded for the first quarter of 2010-11.

1.36 Since the start of 2012, DFID has changed the way it reviews and scores projects. The new project scores assess actual performance against expected milestones as opposed to likelihood of achievement. The portfolio quality index will be modified to reflect the new approach to project scoring. December 2011 is the last reporting period for portfolio quality under the previous system. Pipeline of Programmes approved or under design

1.37 DFID has strengthened its monitoring of the number of programmes that have either been approved or are under design to ensure that it has sufficient plans in place, or in the pipeline, to deliver planned results.

1.38 Figure 1.5 provides information on the outlook for DFID’s pipeline delivery up to 2014-15 compared with its budget. The data show that DFID is in a good position for 2012-13 and 2013-14 with a sufficient number of programmes already approved or programmed over the next two years. A good pipeline of programmes enables DFID to select those that represent best value for money. DFID is working to develop further programmes for 2013-14 and 2014-15. Monitoring and Evaluation

1.39 Reviewing programmes during implementation and at completion is a key part of DFID’s monitoring strategy. Reviewers assess whether the programme still represents value for money. All annual reviews and project completion reviews are published on DFID’s website.

1.40 As one measure of how well DFID is monitoring the implementation of its programmes, DFID tracks the number of reviews completed on time. Up until the end of December 2011, DFID saw a steady rise in the percentage of reviews completed on time as shown in Table F. The percentage fell in the last quarter of 2011-12 and reflects the fact that since January 2012, DFID has extended its review process to cover all programmes under £1 million. This new requirement has increased the volume of programmes due for review. It is expected that once the organisation completes the transition to the new review process, the share of reviews completed on time should rise again. This will be monitored closely over 2012-13.

1.41 DFID has also made good progress over 2011/12 to enhance its evidence base and learning from its programmes. DFID has over 300 evaluations planned for commission over the next 5 years.

Table F: Timeliness of Annual Reviews and Project Completion Reports

| | End Jun-11 | End Sep-11 | End Dec-11 | End Mar-12 | |--------------------------------|------------|------------|------------|------------| | Total reviews due | 478 | 423 | 379 | 449\* | | Total reviews completed on time| 259 | 323 | 311 | 330 | | Annual reviews overdue | 48 | 33 | 40 | 57 | | Project completion reviews overdue| 171 | 67 | 28 | 62 | | % of reviews completed on time | 54.18% | 76.36% | 82.06% | 73.50% |

\*From Jan 2012, figure includes all programmes under £1 million due for review.

Performance against DFID’s Structural Reform Plan

1.42 DFID’s structural reform priorities are set out in the Structural Reform Plan in the DFID Business Plan for 2011-15 as published in May 2011. The Business Plan (available on DFID website) outlines the Coalition Government’s vision up to 2015 and also includes information on results, expenditure, efficiency and transparency measures. During 2011-12, DFID performed very strongly in implementing its structural reform priorities. As shown in Table J at the end of Chapter 1, 41 actions across all six coalition priorities were due for completion over the course of the year and all were completed on time. Box 1 provides a summary of key structural reform plan achievements over the year. Chapter 4 of the Annual Report includes more detail on progress over the last year to increase the effectiveness of UK aid.

1.43 DFID’s Business Plan was updated in May 2012 and contains an annex with a full list of completed structural reform actions to date. The updated Plan also introduces new structural reform priorities which build on completed work over 2011-12. Box 1: Key Structural Reform Plan Achievements in 2011-12

The completed Structural Reform Plan actions have all contributed directly or indirectly to DFID’s main objective of eliminating world poverty.

Over 2011-12, DFID began to pilot a number of new aid instruments designed to gather evidence on new approaches to aid. This included the implementation of programmes using results-based aid and cash-on-delivery contracts and putting in place new mechanisms to enable poor people to feed-back on how aid has impacted on their lives.

DFID strengthened its approach to engaging with the private sector over 2011-12. This included working with CDC, the Government’s development finance institution, to undertake reforms and develop a new business plan that will increase its development impact and include a renewed focus on direct investments in promising businesses in developing countries.

The last year has seen an enhanced focus on accountability and empowering people to hold their governments to account on how money is spent. This included new guidance to ensure that up to 5% of all budget support goes to accountability institutions and a focus on scaling-up participatory budgeting, cash transfers and other measures which expand choice and empowerment to citizens in developing countries.

The establishment of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI), an independent body responsible for the scrutiny of UK aid, the publishing for the first time of information on how all UK aid over £500 is spent, and the implementation of the UK’s Aid Transparency Guarantee, constituted key milestones in taking the UK’s ambitions on transparency and greater scrutiny to new levels.

As part of DFID’s on-going effort to make public the results that DFID plans to achieve with UK aid, DFID published the results of its comprehensive aid reviews as well as Operational Plans for each department, detailing their planned headline results up to 2015 and how they intend to achieve these.

DFID launched a new mechanism for giving British people a direct say in how part of the aid budget is spent. The new UK Aid Match scheme sees the Government doubling money donated by the public to appeals for charity projects in developing countries. Plans were also finalised this year for the scale-up of the UK’s International Citizen Service to give young volunteers the opportunity to help some of the world’s poorest people abroad. A pilot saw 863 UK volunteers going overseas to do voluntary work.

In March 2011, DFID published its ‘Strategic Vision for girls and women’ to take forward work to improve the lives of girls and women and has since approved new programmes to address the four action pillars of the Vision including: delaying first pregnancy and supporting first childbirth; promoting economic empowerment of girls and women; getting girls through primary and secondary school; and preventing violence against girls and women.

As part of DFID’s focus on strengthening governance and security in fragile and conflict-affected countries, DFID worked with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to create a Joint Programme Results team to provide oversight, quality assurance and guidance for programme management across the UK mission in Afghanistan. In its drive to improve the effectiveness of its programmes, DFID also established separate programmes for North and South Sudan in order to help delivery of joint UK Government objectives and developed and published a full evaluation strategy for DFID’s programmes in Pakistan. DFID’s efforts to work more closely with other Government Departments, including the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and HM Treasury (HMT), resulted in the publication of the UK’s International Climate Fund Plan. The Plan aims to support global poverty reduction by helping developing countries adapt to climate change, take up low carbon growth and tackle deforestation. DFID also launched an Advocacy Fund to help the very poorest countries take part in international climate change negotiations and took further steps over the year to ensure climate issues are addressed in DFID’s own country plans, piloting Strategic Climate Programme Reviews in six countries.

DFID’s work at the international level was marked by successful efforts to encourage other donors to implement the International Aid Transparency Initiative in the run-up to the High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan in November 2011. DFID also successfully co-led the development of new and more effective ways for international organisations to assist fragile and conflict-affected states. This culminated in the endorsement by governments and international organisations of the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States.

**Level 4: Measuring Organisational Efficiency in DFID**

1.44 A key challenge for DFID is delivering a growing aid programme whilst reducing administrative costs. It is essential that DFID ensures its internal corporate processes are as efficient as possible. Level 4 of the DFID Results Framework focuses on monitoring improvements in organisational efficiency.

1.45 An important consideration in determining DFID’s overall efficiency is benchmarking against other organisations. DFID’s Business Plan sets out a list of efficiency indicators which are monitored across all UK government departments. DFID is already publishing information on a quarterly basis against key corporate service areas including human resources, employee engagement, workforce diversity, finance, procurement, estates and environment.

1.46 Tables I and K, at the end of Chapter 1, provide data on the Business Plan indicators using the cross-government common reporting format. These tables report data on a number of DFID’s key efficiency measures. Table I tracks DFID’s annual performance against indicators on common areas of spend across Government. This data forms the basis of DFID’s monitoring and reporting of its overall efficiency. Table K provides data on a number of workforce indicators.

1.47 In addition to the Business Plan indicators, the commentary to the accounts in chapter 5 includes details on progress made in DFID over 2011-12 in the area of environment and sustainability and lists a number of indicators that provide further measures of DFID’s organisational efficiency including reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, waste reduction, water consumption and actions taken to ensure sustainable procurement. 1.3 What DFID has Spent

**DFID Expenditure**

1.48 In financial year 2011-12 DFID total expenditure was £7.874 billion including administration and Annually Managed Expenditure. Of this £3,416 million was spent directly on country and regional programmes; and of this £1,838 million was spent in Africa. The largest single DFID country programme was in Ethiopia. A summary of the ten largest country programmes is shown in Table G. A breakdown of DFID Programme expenditure is shown in Figure 1.6 below.

1.49 Table G: Top 10 DFID country programmes 2011-12, £millions.

**Table G: Top 10 DFID country programmes 2011-12, £millions**

| Country Programme | Out-turn Expenditure | |-------------------|----------------------| | DFID Ethiopia | 324.1 | | DFID India | 268.4 | | DFID Pakistan | 215.8 | | DFID Bangladesh | 202.8 | | DFID Nigeria | 171.5 | | DFID Afghanistan | 153.9 | | DFID DRC | 142.7 | | DFID Tanzania | 141.0 | | DFID Somalia | 102.9 | | DFID Kenya | 94.3 | Figure 1.6: DFID Programme Expenditure 2011-12

Total DFID Programme Expenditure\* £7,716m

Country and Regional Programmes £3,416m

- Africa £1,838m
- Asia, Caribbean and Overseas Territories £765m
- Western Asia and Stabilisation Division £414m
- Security & Humanitarian and Middle East Division £399m

International Finance £1,795m

- World Bank £953m
- Global Funds £396m
- Regional Development Banks £267m
- Debt Relief £91m
- Other £87m

International Relations £1,669m

- Europe £1,362m
- United Nations and Commonwealth £307m

Policy and Research £826m

- Climate and Environment £204m
- Research and Evidence £250m
- Civil Society £201m
- Other £171m

Corporate Performance £39m

- Includes resource programme, programme capital and Front Line Delivery but excludes resource admin, admin capital and AME. Also includes £29.7m of returned funds. UK Official Development Assistance in 2011

1.50 Official Development Assistance (ODA) is the internationally agreed standard definition of aid as laid out in the Statistical Reporting Directives of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). ODA is reported by calendar year using cash accounting. In total, including spending by other UK government departments, provisional UK ODA in 2011 was £8,570 billion or 0.56% of UK Gross National Income (GNI). DFID accounted for £7,613 billion or 89%. Table H below shows the distribution of ODA across UK government departments. Final UK ODA figures for 2011 will be published in October 2012.

Table H: DFID and non-DFID Provisional ODA 2011, £ millions

| | 2011 | 2010 | |--------------------------------|-------|-------| | Total UK ODA | 8,570 | 8,452 | | Of which: | | | | DFID ODA | 7,613 | 7,386 | | Non-DFID ODA | 958 | 1,067 | | Of which non-DFID Bilateral ODA:| | | | CDC Group | 59 | 218 | | Conflict Pool (FCO & MoD) | 218 | 167 | | Export Credit Guarantee Department (ECGD) | 91 | 54 | | Foreign and Commonwealth Office (excluding Conflict Pool) | 218 | 167 | | Department for Energy and Climate Change | 144 | 255 | | UK Border Agency (Costs of supporting refugees in the UK) | 20 | 12 | | Scottish Government | 10 | 9 | | Gift Aid | 65 | 47 | | Colonial Pensions | 3 | 3 | | Other government departments bilateral ODA[1] | 36 | 7 | | Administrative costs | 12 | 14 | | Of which non-DFID multilateral ODA\[2\]: | | | | EC Attribution | 97 | 110 | | Contributions to UN and other multilateral organisations | 119 | 72 |

[1] Includes the Welsh Assembly; the Department for Culture, Media and Sport; the Department of Health; and the Department for Energy, Food and Rural Affairs.

[2] This consists of core contributions to multilateral organisations from other government departments. Latest Data on DFID Business Plan indicators

1.51 Consistent with the cross-government common reporting format, Tables I-K report the latest annual data on all of the performance indicators for spend, results and people contained in DFID’s Business Plan and provide a summary of the data reported across Chapter 1. Measurement information and data are also reported quarterly in the Quarterly Data Summary on DFID’s website.

1.52 DFID’s new results framework has led to a fundamental change in how DFID monitors and collects results information. A subset of the Level 2 results indicators are reported as part of DFID’s Business Plan (impact indicators) along with information relating to the costs of these results (input indicators). The data presented for the impact indicators in 2011-12 are calculated on a different basis from the previous data reported a year ago on those indicators (Table J below). DFID now has a process to collect more timely information on results achieved. We are now able to report results information specifically for financial year 2011-12 and we will continue to report results by financial year in the future.

1.53 The data used to calculate results achieved is subject to time lags; this lag between the reference period of the data and when it is made available varies across countries and across indicators. Therefore the data for 2011-12 is incomplete at this stage as some data is not yet available. We will revise the reported results for 2011-12 and for each financial year in future results publications to provide a complete picture for each financial year. This improved method of reporting results will provide more comparable data in future years.

### Table I: Latest data on DFID Business Plan Spend Indicators

| Budget | Emillion | Common Areas of Spend | Q3 2011-12 | Q4 2010-11 | |--------|----------|-----------------------|-------------|-------------| | **Total Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL)** | | | | | | of which Resource DEL (excl. Depreciation) | | | | | | **Up to top 5 contributory elements** | | | | | | A: Improve the Effectiveness of Multilateral Aid | 1,461 | 2,044 | | | | B: Bilateral Aid to Africa | 1,721 | 1,613 | | | | C: Bilateral Aid to Asia | 886 | 777 | | | | D: Develop a Global Partnership for Development | 583 | 582 | | | | E: Bilateral Aid to the Rest of the World | 327 | 376 | | | | **Purchase of goods and services within Resource DEL** | 174 | 183 | | | | **Payroll within Resource DEL** | 114 | 112 | | | | **Grants within Resource DEL** | 6,074 | 6,441 | | | | **Total Annually Managed Expenditure (AME)** | 44 | 249 | | | | **Financial Indicators** | 2011-12 | 2010-11 | | | | Accuracy of Cash Forecasting (+/- %) | 2.64 | 7.03 | | | | Working Capital Forecast (% variance of Actual v Forecast) | -4.61 | Not available | | | | Net Book Value (% variance of Actual v Forecast) | -4.00 | Not available | | |

[1] Top 5 contributory elements align with headings as reported in DFID’s Quarterly Data Summary over 2011-12. Table J: Latest data on DFID Business Plan results indicators

| RESULTS | |------------------|------------------| | **Input Indicators**[1] | 2011-12 | Previous | | Cost per child supported in primary education (previous = 2008) | $140 | $156 | | Average unit price of long-lasting insecticide treated bed nets procured (previous = 2009/10)[2] | $3.79 | $4.55 | | Cost per person of providing sustainable access to an improved sanitation facility with DFID support (previous = 2009/10) | £56 | £71 | | Cost per person of improving access to financial services[3] | Not available | Not available | | DFID spend on elections – through DFID’s Bilateral programme (previous = 2010/11) | £30 million | £34 million | | DFID spend on elections – DFID’s Imputed Multilateral Share (previous = 2009/10)[4] | £13 million | £14 million | | Cost per birth delivered by a skilled birth attendant with DFID support (previous = range of data from 2006/07 to 2010/11) | £266 | £246 | | DFID spend on climate change adaptation, low carbon development and protecting forests – through DFID’s Bilateral programme (previous = 2010/11) | £165 million | £44 million | | DFID spend on climate change adaptation, low carbon development and protecting forests – through DFID’s multilateral programme (previous = 2010/11) | £87 million | £512 million | | DFID spend on multilateral organisations (previous = 2010/11) | £3,386 million | £3,209 million | | **Impact Indicators**[5] | 2011-12 | Previous | | Number of children supported by DFID in primary education (previous = range of data from 2008/09 to 2010/11)[6] | 2.9 million | 7.6 million | | Number of insecticide treated bed-nets distributed with DFID support – through DFID’s bilateral programme (previous = 2009/10) | 11.0 million | 8.8 million | | Number of insecticide treated bed-nets distributed with DFID support – through DFID’s multilateral programme (GFATM) (previous = 2010; Latest results = calendar year 2011) | 11.9 million | 3.5 million | | Number of people with sustainable access to an improved sanitation facility as a result of DFID programmes (previous = 2009/10) | 2.0 million | 0.8 million | | Number of people with access to financial services as a result of DFID support – through DFID’s Bilateral programme (previous = range of data from 2006 to 2010) | 11.8 million | 1.0 million | | Number of people with access to financial services as a result of DFID support – through DFID’s Multilateral programme (IFAD) (previous = 2009; Latest results = 2010) | 0.2 million | 0.3 million | | Number of people who vote in elections supported by DFID (previous = range of data from 2004/05 to 2008/09) | 68.3 million | 600 million | | Number of births delivered with the help of nurses, midwives or doctors through DFID funding (previous = range of data from 2006 to 2010/11) | 0.4 million | 0.6 million | | Number of people DFID supports to cope with the impacts of climate change | 2.5 million | Not available | | **Other Data Sets** | 2011-12 | Previous | | UK Official Development Assistance (ODA) as a percentage of GNI (previous = 2010)[7] | 0.56% | 0.57% | | % share of global ODA of Donors who are publishing their aid information in an IATI compliant format (previous = position as at end 2010/11) | 39% | 6% | | Number of volunteers participating in International Citizen Service | 863 | Not available | | **Structural Reform Plan Actions** | 2011-12 | | | Total number of actions completed during the year | 41 | | | Total number of actions overdue at the end of the year | 0 | | | Number of overdue actions that are attributable to external factors | 0 | | | Total number of actions ongoing | 29 | |

[1] The input indicators provide information on the cost effectiveness of DFID’s programmes by linking spend to performance. It should be noted that many of the input indicators are not true unit cost indicators. Instead they show aggregate spend on sectors related to the results measured. Other results, which are not captured in the impact indicators, are also being delivered through this spending. DFID is currently working to improve the monitoring and reporting of input indicators.

[2] The weighted average unit price of the most commonly procured long lasting insecticide-treated net (LLIN) by the Global Fund. Source: LLIN orders reported procured in the Price and Quality Reporting system as of 01 June 2012. Some, though not all, of the data on LLIN prices reported by Principal Recipients to the Global Fund is inclusive of freight and insurance. Moving forward, the Global Fund is working with Principal Recipients to ensure that the factory (ex-works) price is entered into the system. The Global Fund is responsible for approximately 70% of all global LLIN procurement. Data for LLINs 190x180x150 was also provided by UNICEF, the US Presidents Malaria Initiative and the subset of Global Fund procurements realised through the Voluntary Pooled Procurement mechanism. The weighted average unit price ranged between $3.28-$3.89. The price of LLINs vary significantly depending on a number of market factors, such as availability, capacity and timing of demand, in addition to product factors including size, shape, colour and denier, and logistic factors such as INCOTERMS.

[3] It is not currently possible to derive accurate data on direct cost incurred in supporting access to financial services by individuals, given financial access for individuals is often a part of wider financial sector development programmes.

[4] Data reported with a one year time lag and relates to calendar year ODA expenditure (i.e. figure under 2011-12 column relates to 2010 ODA spend).

[5] Bilateral results and multilateral results should not be aggregated, as there is a risk of double counting.

[6] Result achieved as at 2011-12, based on single year country contributions for either 2010-11 or 2011-12.

[7] Relates to previous calendar year ODA expenditure (i.e. figure under 2011-12 column relates to 2011 ODA spend). 2011 ODA figure is provisional.

### Table K: Latest Data on DFID Business Plan Workforce Indicators

#### PEOPLE

| Whole Department Family – Workforce Size | 31 Mar 2012 | 31 Mar 2011 | |-----------------------------------------|-------------|-------------| | Payroll Staff | | | | Department and Agencies | 1652 | 1567 | | Non-departmental public bodies | 3 | 1 | | Department Family | 1655 | 1568 | | Average Staff Costs (£) | 60760 | 59397 | | Contingent Labour | | | | Department and Agencies | 52 | 57 | | Non-departmental public bodies | 0 | 0 | | Department Family | 52 | 57 |

| Department and Agencies Only | Year ended 31 Mar 2012 | Year ended 31 Mar 2011 | |-----------------------------------------|------------------------|------------------------| | Workforce Shape (%) | | | | Administrative Assistants and Administrative Officers | 6.2 | 8.1 | | Executive Officers | 10.8 | 12.6 | | Higher and Senior Executive Officers | 27.2 | 27.2 | | Grade 7/6 | 51.0 | 47.2 | | Senior Civil Servants | 4.8 | 4.9 | | Part Time | 8.5 | 8.8 | | Workforce Dynamics | | | | Recruitment Exceptions | 171 | 21 | | Annual Turnover Rate | 9.3 | 8.0 | | Workforce Diversity (%) | | | | Black and Minority Ethnic | 11.6 | 12.0 | | Women | 51.7 | 51.7 | | Disabled | 3.9 | 3.5 | | Workforce Diversity (Senior Civil Servants only) (%) | 6.7 | 10.0 | | Black and Minority Ethnic | 39.0 | 35.4 | | Women | 33.3 | 29.4 | | Disabled | 1.2 | 1.3 | | Attendance (AWDL) | | | | Actual | 4.5 | 5.2 | | Standardised | Not available | 10.5 |

| Department only; People Survey Metrics | 2011 survey | 2010 survey | |-----------------------------------------|-------------|-------------| | Engagement Index (%) | 70 | 71 | | Theme scores (%) | | | | Leadership and Managing Change | 53 | 51 | | My Work | 80 | 79 | | My Line Manager | 70 | 72 | | Organisational Objectives & Purpose | 92 | 92 | CHAPTER 2:

Results in DFID priority countries

2.1 This section focuses on DFID’s work in supporting sustainable poverty reduction through development programmes in DFID’s priority countries in Africa and Asia and the effectiveness of DFID’s bilateral aid in making progress towards the MDGs in these countries. The final section of this chapter covers DFID’s work in Overseas Territories and humanitarian aid.

2.2 These priority countries are: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria, Occupied Palestinian Territories, Pakistan, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, South Sudan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Uganda, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

2.3 Progress towards the MDGs is monitored annually through the collaborative efforts of agencies and organisations within the United Nations and international statistical systems. Data at a global and regional level are published annually. Based on the same international data and in conjunction with Oxford Policy Management, DFID developed its own assessment methodology several years ago to monitor progress towards the MDGs at country level. This methodology has been used in previous Annual Reports, and is used again here.

2.4 Throughout this section the following colour coding is used to illustrate progress against the specific MDG indicators:

| Colour | Description | |--------|-------------| | Green | Countries have either ‘achieved’ their target or are ‘on track’ to achieve their target. I.e. they have a rate of progress that, if continued, will mean that they will reach the target by 2015. | | Amber | Countries have made progress, but too slowly to reach the target by 2015. Continuing at the same rate, they will reach the goal by 2040. These countries are rated ‘off track’. | | Red | Countries have made very slow progress, no progress at all, or have regressed. These countries are rated ‘severely off track’. | | Grey | Countries have insufficient data to be able to monitor progress. |

2.5 Data in this section was taken from the United Nations Statistical Division (UNSD) website for the MDGs. DFID consulted its country offices on the appropriateness of the UNSD data. Where countries felt that other data sources, such as health, demographic or household surveys, had more recent data, longer time series or more accurately reflected the position of the country, this data has been used instead. As such, some of the data used here may differ from UNSD data.

3 For ratings of Maternal Mortality Ratio, a green rating indicates ‘low’ or ‘moderate’ MMR, an amber rating indicates ‘high’ MMR and a red rating indicates ‘very high’ MMR as classified by UNICEF.

4 For ratings of HIV prevalence, a green rating indicates that the target has been achieved, or that there has been a positive reduction in the number living with HIV. An amber rating indicates no change in numbers and a red rating indicates an increase in the number living with HIV. 2.6 In this report, as in previous reports one indicator is used per MDG to illustrate a country’s progress. We are currently investigating which other indicators can add to this picture of progress towards the MDG goals.

2.7 For each country the report includes a summary breakdown of country programme expenditure by sector in 2011-12. This expenditure reflects country programmes managed by DFID country offices as described in the published operational plans. The data are derived from DFID’s input sector code system. This system permits each individual project to be allocated up to eight codes which correspond to the sector where the relevant funds will be spent. The sector codes are derived largely from those used by the OECD DAC.

Figure 2.1 shows the 2011-12 breakdown of DFID’s bilateral programme expenditure on the same basis. The sector receiving the highest amount was Governance and Security (£752m), followed by Education (£613m) and then Global Partnerships (£451m).

**Figure 2.1: DFID bilateral aid by sector 2011-12**

Total Spend £4.22 billion Chapter 2: Results in DFID priority countries

Afghanistan

| MDG Indicator | Proportion of population below $1.25 a day | Net enrolment in primary education | Ratio of girls to boys in primary education | Under 5 mortality ratio | Maternal mortality ratio | HIV prevalence, 15-49 years old | Improved water source | |---------------|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------| | Current Assessment | Grey | Green | Amber | Grey | Red | Grey | Grey |

Country Summary and Top Priorities

Afghanistan faces huge development challenges after over 30 years of conflict. It remains one of the poorest and most fragile countries in the world and there is some way to go to achieve the MDGs. International combat troops will leave the country by the end of 2014, when Afghan forces will take over security responsibility. The UK is committed to providing development assistance to Afghanistan in the long term. The official population estimate is 27 million, and 36% per cent of people live below the Afghan national poverty line of 60p per day.

DFID’s Afghanistan programme commitment will remain at £178m per year until 2015. Our vision is a more peaceful, stable and prosperous country.

Top priorities

- improving security and political stability;
- stimulating the economy; and
- helping the Afghan government deliver basic services.

Contribution to the MDGs

UK support has helped make rapid progress on MDG 2 – achieving universal primary education, though our support to the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF). Now 5.8m children attend primary and secondary school – over a third of whom are girls – up from just a million children in school under the Taliban, almost none of them girls.

On MDG 1 – eradicating extreme poverty and hunger – one child in every six under five is acutely malnourished. DFID reached 1.4m children with food aid in 2011-2012, helping to ensure these children received vital nutrients.

UK support to the business sector is helping to create jobs and economic growth – the economy is estimated to have grown by 8.4% in 2010-11; while revenue collection was £811 million.

DFID Top 3 Results in Afghanistan

| Indicators | Number of children attending primary school | Number of people reached with emergency food assistance through DFID support | The proportion of the Afghanistan projected budget actually spent for the ten ministries with the highest spend | |------------|--------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Results | In 2011-12, DFID contributed to 4,667,565 children attending primary school. | In 2011-12, DFID reached 1.4 million people with emergency food assistance | Between 2009/10 and 2011/12 this has increased from 44% to 56%. | | Context | DFID’s target is to contribute to nearly 5.5 million children attending primary school in 2013-2014 at least 40% girls. | Afghanistan remains very food insecure. The 1.4m children reached were supported through a high-energy biscuits programme, which encourages them to stay in school. | UK support has helped the Afghan Ministry of Finance streamline financial planning processes, which means it can expand basic services in the country. The 52% budget execution target was exceeded by 4% in 2011/12. |

Our Operational Plan for Afghanistan sets out our targets and how we plan to achieve these over the current spending review period 2012-15 – http://www.dfid.gov.uk/where-we-work/asia-south/afghanistan/

______________________________________________________________________

5 Primary education sources – Ministry of Education (MoE); MoE Information Management System; Afghan Government budget data. 6 Humanitarian aid sources – World Food Programme (WFP) figures. 7 Afghan Government budget execution rate sources – Ministry of Finance Afghanistan Financial Management Information System. Bangladesh

| MDG Indicator | Proportion of population below $1.25 a day | Net enrolment in primary education | Ratio of girls to boys in primary education | Under 5 mortality ratio | Maternal mortality ratio | HIV prevalence, 15-49 years old | Improved water source | |---------------|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|------------------------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------| | Current Assessment | Green | Green | Green | Green | Green | Green | Red |

Country Summary and Top Priorities

Bangladesh is a poor and politically fragile country, highly vulnerable to natural disasters and already experiencing the effects of climate change. Population growth and rapid urbanisation are on-going challenges with about 150 million people living in an area the size of England and Wales.

Good progress has been made on development outcomes in recent years: income poverty and maternal deaths have fallen and more girls are in school. But basic services like health and education still need to expand fast to keep pace with the young population, and the quality of these services needs to improve. One in nineteen children die before they reach five years old, and around 120,000 babies die every year in their first month of life.

Top priorities

- accelerating progress on access to basic services and poverty reduction, focusing on lagging areas and excluded groups including women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities;
- supporting private sector development, jobs and skills, as the foundation for more sustainable, equitable and higher growth and development over the long term; and
- helping to reduce and manage risks to development, especially those related to governance and security, natural disasters and climate change and the economy.

Contribution to the MDGs

Bangladesh is on track to halve income poverty by 2015. However, large inequalities remain. DFID is targeting the extreme poor, particularly women, with direct transfers of assets like cows and training to help them set up businesses. Enrolment in primary education is high, particularly among girls, but drop-out rates are high too. DFID is improving the quality of teaching in schools and focusing on those that are left out.

Despite good progress on maternal health, over 7,000 pregnant women die each year. DFID is responding by making sure more women can give birth safely, fewer babies die and looking at how the private sector can help. Bangladesh is off track on water and sanitation so DFID is doing a lot to provide safe water sources and improved latrine toilets to the poor, mainly in urban slums. DFID has also helped people affected by waterlogging by providing 150,000 people with emergency cash transfers, and by rebuilding more flood-resilient homes for 55,000 people in 2011-12.

DFID Top 3 Results in Bangladesh

| Indicators | Number of people with sustainable access to an improved sanitation facility through DFID support. | Number of people supported to have choice and control over their own development and to hold decision makers to account. | Number of additional women using modern methods of family planning through DFID support. | |------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Results | 960,000 | 360,000 | 290,000 | | Context | The support addresses the acute need for sanitation by building on existing programmes to provide access to people living in urban slums and remote and isolated areas. | The number of people in DFID funded projects attending meetings and events that allow them to engage with locally elected officials. | DFID is supporting the Government of Bangladesh’s Health sector and Urban Primary Health Care programmes to ensure free access to family planning services. |

Our Operational Plan for Bangladesh sets out our targets and how we plan to achieve these over the current spending review period 2012-15 – DFID – Bangladesh Chapter 2: Results in DFID priority countries

Burma

| MDG Indicator | Proportion of population below $1 a day | Net enrolment in primary education | Ratio of girls to boys in primary education | Under 5 mortality ratio | Maternal mortality ratio | HIV prevalence, 15-49 years old | Improved water source | |---------------|----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------|----------------------| | Current Assessment | Grey | Amber | Green | Amber | Grey | Amber | Red |

Country Summary and Top Priorities

In the last year there have been significant reforms in Burma, including the release of many political prisoners, by-elections which saw Aung San SuuKyi elected to Parliament, and initial ceasefires in some ethnic conflict areas. There has been some relaxation of censorship, a fledgling Parliament starting to grow in confidence and some new legislation on labour rights and freedom of association. Despite these positive changes, the decades of repressive military rule, economic mismanagement and on-going internal conflict mean millions of people in Burma remain trapped in extreme poverty.

We will continue to work as part of the UK Government’s effort to encourage further change and secure a peaceful and prosperous Burma with a government that is accountable and respects human rights.

Top priorities

- helping local groups to have a say in their future;
- tackling malaria and reducing child and maternal mortality; and
- investing in viable rural economies.

Contribution to the MDGs

Burma is off-track to meet most of the MDGs and has amongst the worst health indicators in Asia. Burma is also critical if we are to contain the spread of drug resistant malaria. This is why DFID Burma is providing 500,000 women and men with appropriate treatment to contain the spread of drug resistant malaria and by 2015 (with 178,000 people already treated this year). Programmes designed to support wealth creation and reduce poverty, hunger and vulnerability have also started – giving people access to financial services and the ability to produce more food. This in turn is helping lift people out of extreme poverty. In education this year DFID helped over 30,000 girls and boys to overcome barriers to accessing and completing primary school by providing supplies and teacher training. It is hoped this will increase primary enrolment and result in more girls completing school.

DFID Top 3 Results in Burma

| Indicators | Number of women and men who receive appropriate treatment to contain the spread of drug-resistant malaria. | Number of women with access to financial services as a result of DFID support. | Number of women and men who have produced more food, through DFID support. | |------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------| | Results | 178,000 | 11,430 | 139,500 | | Context | Giving the correct treatment to people with malaria is a key pillar of malaria control. | Women use these loans to develop small home-based businesses, buy their own small livestock and purchase seeds and fertiliser in readiness for the monsoon. | These 139,500 people achieved – on average – a 20% yield increase in rice, sesame and groundnuts as a result. |

Our Operational Plan for Burma sets out our targets and how we plan to achieve these over the current spending review period 2012-15 – DFID – Burma The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

| MDG Indicator | Proportion of population below $1 a day | Net enrolment in primary education | Ratio of girls to boys in primary education | Under 5 mortality ratio | Maternal mortality ratio, 15-49 years old | HIV prevalence, 15-49 years old | Improved water source | |---------------|----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|------------------------|------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|----------------------| | Current Assessment | Grey | Red | Amber | Red | Red | Grey | Red |

Country Summary and Top Priorities

The DRC has enormous potential, but years of bad governance and civil war have seen it sink to the bottom of the Human Development Index. It is one of the worst places in the world to be born a girl, with high levels of sexual violence. The DRC is off track on virtually all of the MDGs. Political will and sound economic management, combined with investments in infrastructure and basic services and focused international aid, could bring a stable and prosperous DRC within reach. Helping turn it in that direction is a core goal of our country programme.

Top priorities

- deliver direct support to millions of Congolese through humanitarian, community recovery, health, water and sanitation, and education programmes;
- promote growth by improving the roads network, reform of the minerals sector and business environment; and
- build support for and help to implement governance reform, strengthening core state functions in financial management and civilian protection.

Contribution to the MDGs

MDG1: DFID’s support to humanitarian efforts is providing a vital safety net to 2.5 million of DRC’s most vulnerable people each year. Over the past year DFID funding has opened around 750 km of roads, reducing journey times from days to hours allowing better physical access to markets and basic services. Our community recovery programme is helping villagers to rehabilitate health posts, classrooms, water supplies and roads.

MDG4: One fifth of children born in the DRC do not reach their first birthday and 43% of children under five will grow up stunted due to malnutrition. In 2011 UK support provided 153,000 children under five with therapeutic feeding supplies and 70,000 were vaccinated against measles, raising coverage rates to 82% (40% in 2008) in zones where we work.

MDG5: With an estimated one in 100 births resulting in the death of the mother, the DRC accounts for almost one in ten of all maternal deaths in Africa. DFID support in 2011 has ensured that over 93,000 births were attended by skilled assistants. In zones covered by the project, assisted deliveries have risen to 76% in 2011 (34% in 2008).

MDG 6: Less than 50% of the DRC population have access to clean water, falling to just 28% in rural areas. In the last year DFID support has provided clean water to around 275,000 people and improved sanitation and hygiene for almost 200,000.

Meeting the needs of girls and women and building incentives for peace are priorities for the whole programme.

DFID Top 3 Results in DRC

| Indicators | Number of children under five and pregnant women reached through DFID’s nutrition programmes. | Number of insecticide treated bednets distributed with DFID support. | Kilometres of roads built or upgraded. | |------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------| | Results | 153,000 | 929,442 (to Feb) | 748 km (to Feb) | | Context | Through UNICEF, DFID funds therapeutic feeding supplies to feeding centres run by NGOs. | Working with National Malaria plan to distribute nets in Equateur, the least accessible part of the DRC, by barge, pirogue or bicycles. | DFID has built/upgraded priority roads to re-join isolated areas to major towns, and roads that provide humanitarian access. |

Our Operational Plan for DRC sets out our targets and how we plan to achieve these over the current spending review period 2012-15 – http://www.dfid.gov.uk/where-we-work/africa-west--central/congo-democratic-republic/ Chapter 2: Results in DFID priority countries

Ethiopia

| MDG Indicator | Proportion of population below $1.25 a day | Net enrolment in primary education | Ratio of girls to boys in primary education | Under 5 mortality ratio | Maternal mortality ratio | HIV prevalence, 15-49 years old | Improved water source | |---------------|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------|----------------------| | Current Assessment | Green | Amber | Green | Green | Red | Amber | Amber |

Country Summary and Top Priorities

Ethiopia has experienced impressive growth and development in recent years, but its growing population remains poor and vulnerable. The Government of Ethiopia’s approach to political governance presents substantive challenges.

Top priorities

UK aid to Ethiopia will continue to meet the needs of the very poorest, consolidate development gains, help achieve the MDGs and make our support more transformational by:

- focusing more on girls and women;
- working to ensure that over time the humanitarian effort responds exclusively to crises;
- addressing geographical inequality;
- increasing resilience to weather changes and leveraging opportunities due to climate change;
- empowering citizens and building accountability; and
- innovating to leverage faster progress.

Contribution to the MDGs

Over the years 2005 – 10, with substantial support from the UK and others, Ethiopia has helped lift 5 million people out of poverty (Ethiopian National Measure). Over the same period DFID support to national programmes in health contributed to a reduction in child mortality of nearly a third and the deployment of 34,000 health extension workers. In education, DFID support to primary education has contributed towards an increase of around a million children in school over the 2010-11 school year alone. Continued support to the Productive Safety Net Programme helps provide food and cash transfers to nearly 8 million of the very poorest Ethiopians and this year has helped reduce humanitarian caseload caused by the prolonged drought.

DFID Top 3 Results in Ethiopia

| Indicators | Number of people achieving food security through DFID support. | Number of children supported by DFID in primary education. | Number of people with access to improved hygiene through DFID support to hygiene promotion. | |------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Results | 125,405 people (year to June 2011). | 1,672,000 children (878,000 boys and 794,000 girls, year to June 2011). | Additional 769,623 people (year to June 2011). | | Context | DFID provides 15% of funding for the Productive Safety Nets programme which delivers timely, adequate and predictable food and cash transfers to chronically food insecure people in rural Ethiopia. | DFID provides around 10% of primary and education sector funding in Ethiopia. National enrolment rates are above forecasts and well on-track to deliver 2015 targets. | DFID continues to support the national health extension worker scheme to improve access to community level preventative and basic curative services. |

Our Operational Plan for Ethiopia sets out our targets and how we plan to achieve these over the current spending review period 2012-15 – http://www.dfid.gov.uk/ethiopia

______________________________________________________________________

8 Household Income Consumption & Expenditure Survey, using Ethiopian National Measure. 9 Demographic & Health Survey. 10 Ethiopia Health Sector Development Plan Annual Report. 11 PSNP Annual Implementation Report. Ghana

| MDG Indicator | Proportion of population below $1.25 a day | Net enrolment in primary education | Ratio of girls to boys in primary education | Under 5 mortality ratio | Maternal mortality ratio | HIV prevalence, 15-49 years old | Improved water source | |---------------|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------| | Current Assessment | Green | Amber | Green | Amber | Amber | Amber | Green |

Country Summary and Top Priorities

Ghana has seen significant change in the last 20 years. Continued economic growth and political stability have combined to put the country on target to halve extreme poverty by 2015.

There is still much to do – such as bridging the gap between progress in the south and lack of progress in the north, creating jobs, making sure the revenues from oil resources are used effectively, and tackling the key development priorities that are off-track.

Top priorities

- ensuring that the government of Ghana’s resources are well managed for the benefit of all 24 million citizens;
- encouraging enterprise and wealth creation;
- ensuring quality education services; and
- reducing maternal mortality and child deaths.

Contribution to the MDGs

DFID Ghana will make a substantial contribution towards achieving MDG 4 - reducing child mortality – and MDG 6 – combat HIV Aids, Malaria and other Diseases. The 2.35 million mosquito nets already distributed should give 4.7 million people access to protection from malaria and prevent an estimated 13,000 children under five from dying.

MDG 3 – promoting gender equality and empowering women – whilst Ghana is on track to achieve gender parity in primary education, gender parity in secondary education is still off track. DFID Ghana’s education programme is tackling this by ensuring 60,000 girls stay in secondary school through targeted incentives by 2015, and has already given 10,000 children who are currently out of school the chance to re-enter education.

DFID Top 3 Results in Ghana

| Indicators | Number of insecticide treated bed nets distributed with DFID support. | Number of out-of-school children enrolled in School for Life Programme. | Number of contraceptives supplied. | |------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | Results | 2,350,000 insecticide treated bed nets distributed. | 10,000 out-of-school children enrolled in School for Life programme. | 2.5 million injectable contraceptives and 66,400 contraceptive implants supplied. | | Context | 2,350,000 insecticide treated bed nets were distributed in 2011-12 – almost half of the 4,750,000 nets we plan to distribute by 2015. | 10,000 out-of-school children were enrolled in programmes that will support them to enter mainstream education. (There are about 650,000 children out of school in Ghana). | An estimated 291,400 potentially new contraceptive users were supported through the supply of 2.5 million injectable contraceptives and 66,400 contraceptive implants. |

Our Operational Plan for Ghana sets out our targets and how we plan to achieve these over the current spending review period 2012-15 – DFID – Ghana India

| MDG Indicator | Proportion of population below $1.25 a day | Net enrolment in primary education | Ratio of girls to boys in primary education | Under 5 mortality ratio | Maternal mortality ratio | HIV prevalence, 15-49 years old | Improved water source | |---------------|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|------------------------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------------|----------------------| | Current Assessment | Green | Green | Amber | Amber | Green | Amber | Green |

Country Summary and Top Priorities

India is the world’s largest democracy (population: 1.2 billion). With a fast-growing economy and rising government spending on development, India is making good progress on reducing poverty. However, India is still home to one third of the world’s people living on less than 80 pence a day and poverty reduction in the poorest states is critical to attainment of the MDGs.

Top priorities

The UK’s India programme is:

- focused in 3 of the poorest states, where a quarter of India’s poor live;
- targeting the poorest women and girls, to help them get quality schooling, healthcare, nutrition and jobs;
- supporting the private sector in the poorest states. By 2015 about half of the programme will focus on pro-poor private sector investment; and
- deepening engagement with India on global issues where there may be benefits for poor people elsewhere.

Contribution to the MDGs

The India programme contributes to the MDGs by helping more people, especially women and girls, take part in economic growth by expanding opportunities for education, health and employment. Our new private sector programme will promote bigger flows of private investment to the poorest states to provide more job and training opportunities and improve poor people’s access to finance. We also work with state and central government to improve the quality of social services; and with NGOs and women’s groups to make sure communities can hold service providers to account. India is off track towards achievement of its targets to reduce rates of under-five mortality and under-weight children. DFID is helping expand the number of children reached with nutrition interventions, and making sure the poorest women get the health services they need.

DFID Top 3 Results in India

| Indicators | Nutrition: Number of children under five and pregnant women reached through DFID’s nutrition-relevant programmes. | Governance: Number of people supported by DFID to have control over their development and to hold decision makers to account. | Climate Change: Number of people with improved access to clean energy as a result of DFID funding. | |------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Results | In 2011/2012, our nutrition programme reached over 1.8 million children and pregnant women in Odisha, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh. | In 2011-12, over 1.4 million people, including 0.8 million women, were supported through DFID’s International Partnership Agreement Programme and Mahila Samakhya Programme. | In 2011-12, DFID helped over 0.5 million people to gain access to clean energy. | | Context | DFID is helping to scale up cost effective interventions: infant breastfeeding, iron tablets for pregnant women, hand-washing and management of severe malnutrition. | DFID is helping men and women from socially excluded communities (Dalits, Tribal groups, Muslims) to fight discrimination and gain better access to education, health and income generation services. | DFID is helping fight climate change by giving poor people low carbon and clean energy options: biogas units, solar lights, smokeless cook-stoves and fibre roof sheets. |

Our Operational Plan for India sets out our targets and how we plan to achieve these over the current spending review period 2012-15 – DFID – India country profile – UK aid Kenya

| MDG Indicator | Proportion of population below $1.25 a day | Net enrolment in primary education | Ratio of girls to boys in primary education | Under 5 mortality ratio | Maternal mortality ratio | HIV prevalence, 15-49 years old | Improved water source | |---------------|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|------------------------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------| | Current Assessment | Red | Green | Green | Green | Amber | Amber | Amber |

Country Summary and Top Priorities

Kenya has one of the largest economies in East Africa, but there is a risk that economic potential will not be realised if political stability cannot be maintained.

Top priorities

UK support in Kenya aims to promote stability, stimulate growth led by business, improve service delivery and meet the needs of the very poorest by:

- supporting market development to create more jobs;
- developing ‘safety nets’ for the most disadvantaged;
- improving maternal and reproductive health and accelerating progress in fighting malaria;
- getting more children into school in the poorest areas; and
- promoting stability and strengthening accountability.

Contribution to the MDGs

The UK supports access to financial services, which is a key factor in enabling more people to move out of poverty. With DFID support, more than 3 million Kenyans have gained access to banking services since 2006. Cash transfer programmes for orphaned and vulnerable children households and the very poorest in rural Kenya are contributing to improved access to education and health services, and reduced food insecurity in prolonged periods of drought. Primary school enrolment rose from 83% in 2003 to 93% in 2009(^\\text{12}) with DFID sector budget support. Progress has now stalled and DFID is providing targeted support to the remaining 1 million children out of school, mostly in the arid and semi-arid lands and urban slums. In health, consistent support from DFID in the fight against malaria in children and mothers has contributed to a reduction in child mortality of over a third between 2003 and 2009(^\\text{13}).

DFID Top 3 Results in Kenya

| Indicators | Number of people with access to financial services as a result of DFID support. | Number of people benefitting from DFID supported cash transfer programmes. | Number of insecticide treated bednets distributed with DFID support. | |------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------| | Results | 585,927 new users (year to Dec 2011). | 593,500 people (year to March 2012). | 2,124,969 insecticide treated nets (ITNs) distributed. (2011/12). | | Context | Since 2005 DFID has supported women and the poor to access financial services by transforming small and medium financial enterprises into prudential, regulated institutions. | DFID supports a Hunger Safety Net programme in the four poorest districts, giving long term support through regular cash transfers to those households most vulnerable to food insecurity. | DFID has made a significant contribution to the fight against malaria, distributing over 21 million bednets to women and children since 2002. |

Our Operational Plan for Kenya sets out our targets and how we plan to achieve these over the current spending review period 2012-15 – DFID – Kenya

______________________________________________________________________

(^{12}) Kenya, Education Facts and Figures.

(^{13}) Kenya Demographic Health Survey, 2008-09. Kyrgyzstan

| MDG Indicator | Proportion of population below $1.25 a day | Net enrolment in primary education | Ratio of girls to boys in primary education | Under 5 mortality ratio | Maternal mortality ratio | HIV prevalence, 15-49 years old | Improved water source | |---------------|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|------------------------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------------|----------------------| | Current Assessment | Green | Red | Green | Amber | Green | Amber | Green |

Country Summary and Top Priorities

Kyrgyzstan is one of the poorest countries in Central Asia with GNI per capita of $840. The country’s domestic economic base is narrow and fragile depending on remittances (25% of GDP), trade and transit. Following the ouster of President Bakiev in April 2010 and ethnically motivated violence in June 2010, the newly elected President and the Government are attempting an ambitious reform programme.

Top priorities

DFID focuses resources around three themes in Central Asia:

- private sector and growth;
- promoting democracy and good governance (including management of public finances); and
- regional trade and cooperation, including migration.

Contribution to the MDGs

Kyrgyzstan is showing a strong reduction in the number of people living below the poverty line: the national poverty rate fell from 35% to 32% between 2007-2009. DFID support to improve the tracking of poverty and development issues helps to increase the local capacity related to poverty reduction and policy development. DFID currently supports HIV/AIDS work to improve harm reduction services. We also support improved governance through a programme with other donors to help strengthen Public Finance Management (PFM) and the Kyrgyz Government’s budget process. We also have a major regional programme to try to improve the benefits from labour migration.

DFID Top 3 Results in Kyrgyzstan

| Indicators | Level of PFM Capacity in Kyrgyzstan, measured through Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability indicators. | Influence of citizens and Civil Society Organisations over local service delivery, measured through citizens’ perception of budget allocation. | Number of vulnerable people in Central Asia reached with HIV prevention services provided by the DFID project. | |------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Results | 6 Ministries introduced program budget format for the first time ever; Ministry of Finance developed and posted civil budget template; 770 civil servants are trained in management and PFM. | Public supervision council meet regularly in Ministry of Finance; 35 journalists trained and produced 18 articles on budget transparency. | The coverage for Kyrgyzstan as of end March 2012: Total clients in the period: 27,501; Injected Drug Users: 11,955; Sex Workers: 3,573 Men having sex with Men: 269 Prisoners: 9,984; Ex-prisoners: 1,720. | | Context | An institutional system for policy development and coordination is not effective. But there is a strong commitment by the Government to PFM reforms. | Greater opportunity for budget monitoring by citizens. | The programme is working in a very sensitive and difficult area. There is also strong policy impact in Kyrgyzstan, particularly regarding prisons and the rehabilitation of offenders. |

Our Operational Plan for Central Asia sets out our targets and how we plan to achieve these over the current spending review period 2012-15 – Kyrgyzstan Liberia

| MDG Indicator | Proportion of population below $1 a day | Net enrolment in primary education | Ratio of girls to boys in primary education | Under 5 mortality ratio | Maternal mortality ratio | HIV prevalence, 15-49 years old | Improved water source | |---------------|----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------|----------------------| | Current Assessment | Grey | Grey | Green | Green | Red | Amber | Red |

Country Summary and Top Priorities

Liberia is slowly recovering from a protracted and brutal civil war. Peace has been kept for a decade, with help from the UN. The country held its second successful post-war elections in 2011, but remains desperately poor. The UN Human Development Index rates it as the world’s sixth poorest country. According to the World Bank, average income per person is only US$160 per annum.

The country’s national development plan aims to boost economic growth, create jobs, tackle inequality and improve basic services.

Top priorities

The UK is focusing its relatively modest bilateral aid to Liberia on two top priorities:

- strengthening basic health services, and
- improving infrastructure by helping build roads and manage solid waste.

Contribution to the MDGs

Liberia is unlikely to achieve any of the MDGs by 2015, though the country is succeeding in improving the proportion of girls in school. UK aid is having an impact on maternal health and child survival, and will also help boost economic growth through infrastructure development. Our contribution to the health pooled fund in 2011-12 helped renovate 134 health facilities and increased significantly the number of facilities able to provide essential health services.

DFID Top 3 Results in Liberia

| Indicators | Percentage of government health facilities providing a basic package of essential health services. | Number of health facilities renovated. | Metric tonnes of solid waste collected in Monrovia and safely disposed of. | |------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Results | 80.2% of government health facilities. | 134 health facilities. | 250 tonnes per day. | | Context | In 2009 only 45% of Liberia government health facilities met this standard. | The DFID supported Liberia Health Pooled Fund plans to rehabilitate a total of 205 health facilities by the end of 2013. | Four times as much solid waste is now being safely disposed of in Monrovia than in 2010. |

Our Operational Plan for Liberia sets out our targets and how we plan to achieve these over the current spending review period 2012-15 – DFID – Liberia Malawi

| MDG Indicator | Proportion of population below $1 a day | Net enrolment in primary education | Ratio of girls to boys in primary education | Under 5 mortality ratio | Maternal mortality ratio | HIV prevalence, 15-49 years old | Improved water source | |---------------|----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------| | Current Assessment | Grey | Green | Green | Amber | Red | Amber | Green |

Country Summary and Top Priorities

Malawi is one of the world’s poorest economies, with some of the worst development statistics for a non-conflict country. Up to 75% of the population live below $1.25 a day. It has a rapidly increasing population, expected to double to 26 million by 2030. Agriculture accounts for 30% of GDP and constitutes 90% of food and income that the poor rely on. At least 10 women continue to die daily from maternal deaths. Up to 35% of water points do not work. Education services, while improving, have a long way to go. Gender equality continues to lag. Malawi’s IMF programme went off track in June 2011, and all General Budget Support was suspended by July 2011 due to concerns over governance, human rights and economic management.

Top priorities

- support agricultural livelihoods;
- increase economic growth opportunities;
- improve basic service provision; and
- ability of citizens to hold decision makers to account.

Contribution to the MDGs

DFID Malawi is contributing to the MDGs in several areas. In relation to poverty and hunger, support to the Farm Input Subsidy Programme has ensured that at least 23% of the population achieves some basic level of food security annually. Our new health programmes are focusing on improving maternal and child health as well as ensuring that vulnerable groups continue to have access to free treatment. Our education programmes place a strong emphasis on improving the chances for girls and continue to contribute to gradual improvements to overall education indicators. By 2015 we aim to have helped an additional 750,000 people have access to clean drinking water sources and improved sanitation facilities.

DFID Top 3 Results in Malawi

| Indicators | Number of people receiving seeds or fertiliser through DFID support. | Number of people accessing free emergency drugs through DFID support. | Number of children supported by DFID in primary education per annum. | |------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------| | Results | At least 3,864,000 people reached in 2011 of which 1,970,000 are estimated to be women. | At least 200,000 emergency health cases were treated in the last quarter of 2011 (including 88,700 diarrhoea cases, 87,160 respiratory infections in children and 22,000 malaria cases). | 250,000 supported in 2010, of whom 125,000 were girls. | | Context | DFID’s Farm Input Subsidy Programme (FISP) distribution of seeds and fertiliser has ensured that at least 23% of the population achieves some basic level of food security annually. | The free emergency drugs access programme aims to treat 1.5 million cases of diarrhoea, respiratory infections and malaria cases within 18 months (of which 50% attributable to DFID support). | DFID contributes around 10% of Malawi’s education budget through its Education Sector Reform Programme. DFID support has increased from a baseline of 98,900 children (49,600 girls) in 2009-10. |

Our Operational Plan for Malawi sets out our targets and how we plan to achieve these over the current spending review period 2012-15 – DFID – Malawi Mozambique

| MDG Indicator | Proportion of population below $1 a day | Net enrolment in primary education | Ratio of girls to boys in primary education | Under 5 mortality ratio | Maternal mortality ratio | HIV prevalence, 15-49 years old | Improved water source | |---------------|----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------|----------------------| | Current Assessment | Grey | Amber | Green | Amber | Red | Amber | Amber |

Country Summary and Top Priorities

Since the end of its civil war in 1992, Mozambique has experienced significant development growth, averaging 7.9% over 2001-10. It has huge, untapped natural resources (especially coal and gas), 30 million hectares of unused arable land and links five neighbouring landlocked countries to global shipping routes.

However, growth has been focused on capital-intensive ‘mega-projects’ and only 10% of the population is formally employed. Mozambique remains one of the world’s poorest countries with 75% of the population living on less than $1.25 a day. It is the 14th least-connected country in the world with only 12% of arable land in use.

Top Priorities

- support basic service provision in the areas of health, education, water and sanitation;
- improve the ability of citizens to hold decision makers to account; and
- ensure that the poorest in Mozambican society benefit from agricultural and private sector potential (especially expenditure of natural resource revenues).

Contribution to the MDGs

DFID is providing financial support and help to build the government’s capacity to meet the MDGs, while also supporting the ability of citizens to demand better services.

In 2011-12 this included 2.3 million bednets and the spraying of 2 million households to combat malaria – the leading cause of death in Mozambique – whilst providing 50,000 people with access to water and 30,000 with access to sanitation. In education, DFID will this year fund a pilot aimed at increasing school completion – an area where Mozambique lags behind other countries.

In terms of poverty reduction, DFID supported 64,000 people with cash transfers and 89,000 with improved land and property rights in 2011-12. DFID is also working hard to ensure that growth benefits the poorest.

DFID Top 3 Results in Mozambique

| Indicators | Number of insecticide treated bed-nets distributed with DFID support. | Number of children supported in primary education per annum. | Number of people benefiting from DFID supported cash transfer programmes. | |------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------| | Results | 2.3 million bed nets distributed in 2011. | 258,057 children in 2011, one in every 20 attending school, of whom 122,400 were girls. | 63,785 poor people in 2011. | | Context | DFID funding accounted for 86% of bednets in Mozambique. High coverage (>90%) enabled government to exceed their prevention target through treated bednets for the year. | Working through Mozambique’s Ministry of Education, DFID supported 258,057 children in primary school, which helped to reach a primary net enrolment rate of 93% in 2011. | DFID funded 24% of cash transfers (63,785 out of 267,756 people). However, coverage remains low with only 32% of eligible households receiving support. |

Our Operational Plan for Mozambique sets out our targets and how we plan to achieve these over the current spending review period 2012-15 – DFID – Mozambique Chapter 2: Results in DFID priority countries

Nepal

| MDG Indicator | Proportion of population below $1.25 a day | Net enrolment in primary education | Ratio of girls to boys in primary education | Under 5 mortality ratio | Maternal mortality ratio | HIV prevalence, 15-49 years old | Improved water source | |---------------|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------| | Current Assessment | Grey | Grey | Green | Green | Amber | Amber | Green |

Country Summary and Top Priorities

Nepal suffers chronic poverty entrenched by interrelated factors including gender, caste, ethnicity, age, religion, disability, language and geography. High levels of poverty and social exclusion have been fuelled by conflict from 1996-2006. Corruption, poor infrastructure, weak economic policies and political instability mean that Nepal often lags behind the rest of the region in development terms. Nepal is also one of the 20 most disaster-prone countries in the world. In the last ten years, disasters caused over 4,000 fatalities and economic losses of $5.34bn. Preliminary analysis from a 2012 living standards survey suggests that the proportion of people below the international poverty line has fallen to 25%, almost certainly driven by remittances. Nepal is the world’s 16th poorest country.

Top Priorities

- governance and security;
- improving health (mainly of mothers and children) & education;
- inclusive wealth creation;
- measures to address climate change and disaster preparedness; and
- focus on delivering tangible improvements for girls and women.

Contribution to the MDGs

DFID’s programmes address poverty and hunger by targeting the most vulnerable with activities such as providing employment in road-building programmes and helping farmers improve their incomes. Our health programme focuses on maternal health by providing cash incentives and free delivery care to encourage the poorest to give birth in health facilities, and HIV services for those most at risk of contracting the disease. In education, our support helps the government deliver free basic education and ensure that girls get the same opportunities as boys. Our climate change and forestry work also ensures that Nepal’s development is sustainable so that deforestation is reversed and the vulnerable are protected from climate change.

DFID Top 3 Results in Nepal

| Indicators | Number of people supported to have choice and control over their own development and to hold decision makers to account. | Number of people lifted out of poverty by DFID’s forestry work. | Number of jobs created with DFID’s support. | |------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------| | Results | 79,932 people hold decision makers to account. | 76,000 people lifted out of poverty by DFID’s forestry work. | 45,100 jobs created. | | Context | Despite weak local government (with no local elections since 2002) there has been a dramatic improvement in local accountability of public funds using public audits. | DFID’s support through a Forestry Programme in 15 districts promotes equitable, efficient and sustainable use of forests, focusing on poor and socially excluded people. | Job created in our employment-intensive roads, agriculture, skills and forestry programmes. |

Our Operational Plan for Nepal sets out our targets and how we plan to achieve these over the current spending review period 2012-15 – DFID – Nepal

14 Ministry of Home Affairs, Disaster Preparedness Network, DocumentationCentre, 2010. Nigeria

| MDG Indicator | Proportion of population below $1.25 a day | Net enrolment in primary education | Ratio of girls to boys in primary education | Under 5 mortality ratio | Maternal mortality ratio | HIV prevalence, 15-49 years old | Improved water source | |---------------|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|------------------------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------| | Current Assessment | Red | Red | Amber | Amber | Red | Amber | Red |

Country Summary and Top Priorities

Nigeria is home to 158 million people, but more than 100 million live on less than $1.25 per day. A stable, better governed and prosperous Nigeria would rapidly reduce poverty. It would also hugely benefit UK trade, energy and security interests, and help reduce crime and illegal migration.

Top priorities

- helping Nigeria use its oil revenues to improve the lives of its citizens;
- providing more children with a better education
- providing more family planning and better health services to stop women dying in childbirth;
- immunising more children, helping eradicate polio and distributing antimalarial bednets; and
- helping millions of people to get a bank account and use financial services to build their savings and small businesses.

Nigeria: Programmes by Sector 2011-12

Total Spend £171.5 million

Contribution to the MDGs

Progress is off track on all MDGs in Nigeria. DFID is focusing on health, education, and water and sanitation results particularly in northern Nigeria where the indicators are lagging the most. We have distributed 1.3 million bednets, exceeding our own target. We are starting programmes specifically targeted at helping women access health services, including by increasing numbers of female health workers and introducing health financing schemes that make access to health free at the point of use. We have helped over 300,000 children into primary education and are extending our programmes in this area, improving teacher training and specifically targetting getting girls into school. We have also helped nearly half a million people to access safer water.

DFID Top 3 Results in Nigeria

| Indicators | Number of insecticide treated bednets distributed with DFID support. | Number of children under 5 and pregnant women reached through DFID’s nutrition relevant programmes in Northern Nigeria. | Number of people who vote in elections supported by DFID. | |------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------| | Results | 1.3 million in 2010/11 and 2011/12 | 320,600 | 40 million | | Context | Distribution of bednets is a major success in Nigeria with significant distribution across the country. | Significant success given growing insecurity in northern Nigeria. Programme is expanding to deliver even more results next year. | Elections held in 2011 assessed to be best in Nigerian history. Strong voice of civil society continues to be heard, potentially as result of greater sense of democratic engagement. |

Our Operational Plan for Nigeria sets out our targets and how we plan to achieve these over the current spending review period 2012-15 – DFID – Nigeria Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs)

| MDG Indicator | Proportion of population below $1.25 a day | Net enrolment in primary education | Ratio of girls to boys in primary education | Under 5 mortality ratio | Maternal mortality ratio | HIV prevalence, 15-49 years old | Improved water source | |---------------|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|------------------------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------| | Current Assessment | Grey | Red | Green | Amber | Grey | Grey | Green |

Country Summary and Top Priorities

The OPTs are one of the poorest parts of the region, falling into the Lower Middle Income category. After a decade of economic stagnation due to conflict and movement and access restrictions, real GDP per capita in the West Bank ($1,639 in 2010) has only just returned to the level it was at in 1994. In Gaza GDP per capita ($937 in 2010) is still 40% below 1994 levels. At 26%, poverty levels are high, particularly in Gaza (38%). The population is growing rapidly (3% per year) with under-14s representing 41% of the population (4.15 million in 2010). (Palestinian Statistical Atlas 2011)

Top priorities

- build state institutions and improve security and access to justice as an investment in peace; and
- promote economic growth and meet the needs of the most vulnerable, supporting provision of basic services to people in the OPTs as well as Palestinian refugees in the region.

Contribution to the MDGs

The OPTs is making progress against most MDGs, having already met the targets in education, water and sanitation. Our support helps the OPTs to sustain its performance against the MDGs through funding the delivery of basic services such as health and education. We are working to reduce unemployment and poverty through improving the investment climate and pressing for reduction in the movement and access restrictions that constrain growth. We also support the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which provides essential services to 5 million Palestinian refugees in the OPTs, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon.

DFID Top 3 Results in OPTs

| Indicators | Number of enterprises reporting improved annual performance from DFID support in terms of sales or productivity. Target for the end of 4 years is 1,000 enterprises. | Number of people benefiting from DFID-supported cash transfer programmes. | Number of children supported by DFID in primary education per annum. Target is 36,216 by the end of the Operational Plan. | |------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Results | DFID support enabled 347 enterprises to improve their performance in 2011. | DFID supported 201,253 poor Palestinians through cash transfers in 2011. Target is 217,754 by the end of the Operational Plan. | DFID supported 43,187 Palestinian children to go to primary school in 2011. | | Context | This puts us on track to exceed our OPT target. DFID is providing financial support and technical advice to businesses in both the West Bank and Gaza to compete in new markets, develop new products and re-launch operations. | This puts us on track to exceed our OPT target. Our support includes food vouchers for people at risk of food insecurity, which is a particular challenge in Gaza where OCHA estimates 50% of the population is food insecure. | We have already exceeded our OP target. Funding from the UK and other donors is vital to enable the Palestinian Authority and UNRWA to continue delivering education and other basic services. |

Our Palestinian Programme Operational Plan sets out our targets and how we plan to achieve these over the current spending review period 2012-15 – DFID – Occupied Palestinian Territories Pakistan

| MDG Indicator | Proportion of population below $1.25 a day | Net enrolment in primary education | Ratio of girls to boys in primary education | Under 5 mortality ratio | Maternal mortality ratio | HIV prevalence, 15-49 years old | Improved water source | |---------------|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------------|----------------------| | Current Assessment | Green | Amber | Amber | Amber | Green | Amber | Amber |

Country Summary and Top Priorities

According to latest figures, some 35 million people (one in five) in Pakistan live on less than $1.25 a day. Pakistan has 12 million primary and lower secondary aged children out of school. Half of all adults, including two out of every three women, can’t read or write. One in eleven children die before their fifth birthday and 14,000 women die in childbirth every year.

Entrenched poverty denies opportunities to millions of people, and undermines Pakistan’s long term stability and prosperity. Tackling this poverty and building a stable, prosperous, and democratic Pakistan will help not only millions of poor Pakistanis, but will also improve stability and security in Pakistan, the region, and beyond.

Top priorities

- education;
- women and children’s health;
- job creation and support of economic growth;
- strengthen democracy and address the root causes of conflict; and
- focus on women and girls.

Contribution to the MDGs

Pakistan is facing an education emergency and lagging behind on the MDG of universal primary education. Over the last few years the UK has helped hundreds of thousands of poor children to go to school in Pakistan and has built political and social pressure for change.

In this report, Pakistan has a UNICEF rating of ‘moderate’ MMR levels. However, Pakistan’s national target for MMR of 140 per 100,000 live births is unlikely to be met by 2015, an assessment also reflected in Pakistan’s MDG report for 2010. DFID aims to prevent 3,600 mothers dying in childbirth and help another 500,000 couples access family planning by 2015.

Our cash transfers will help hundreds of thousands of people lift themselves out of poverty by meeting their basic needs for food, health and education.

DFID Top 3 Results in Pakistan

| Indicators | Number of children supported by DFID in primary and secondary education per annum. | Number of flood-affected individuals reached with humanitarian assistance. | Number of people benefitting from DFID supported cash transfer programme. | |------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Results | 429,000 (F: 187,000; M: 242,000) | 2,767,000 | 858,000 |

Context

In 2010-11 DFID was funding education sector programmes in our two focus provinces, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab, which account for over 70% of Pakistan’s population.

Following the 2010 floods, 14m people needed assistance. DFID provided humanitarian support, including water, health, shelter and food, between October 2010 and January 2012.

In 2011-12 DFID supported the Citizen Damage Compensation Programme which targeted flood affected households, including female headed and disabled headed households. Cash was transferred using debit cards.

Our Operational Plan for Pakistan sets out our targets and how we plan to achieve these over the current spending review period 2012-15 – DFID – Pakistan

______________________________________________________________________

15 World Development Indicators. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.DDAY 2008 data published in 2012 and UN World Population Projections, 2008 data from 2010 revision http://esa.un.org/wpp/Other-Information/faq.htm 16 UNESCO Institute of Statistics 2010 data published in 2012. 17 Pakistan Living Standards Measurement Survey 2010/11. 18 http://www.childinfo.org/mortality_ufmrcountrydata.php and http://www.childinfo.org/maternal_mortality_indicators.php Rwanda

| MDG Indicator | Proportion of population below $1.25 a day | Net enrolment in primary education | Ratio of girls to boys in primary education | Under 5 mortality ratio | Maternal mortality ratio | HIV prevalence, 15-49 years old | Improved water source | |---------------|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------|----------------------| | Current Assessment | Grey | Green | Green | Green | Amber | Amber | Green |

Country Summary and Top Priorities

Poverty within Rwanda (defined nationally as being able to afford a basket of basic goods) has declined by 12 percentage points over the past five years. Yet 45% of Rwanda’s 10.4 million people are still poor and 24% extremely poor. Women are more likely to be extremely poor than men. Income inequality is reducing, but is still high and is constraining growth and poverty reduction.

Top priorities

- improving education and health services;
- transformation from an agricultural economy to private sector-led growth;
- increased accountability of the state and empowerment of girls, women and the extreme poor; and
- transition to inclusive politics and enhanced human rights.

Contribution to the MDGs

In Rwanda DFID supports progress towards the MDGs primarily through general and sector budget support to the Government of Rwanda to provide better essential services to the poor – especially in education, health, agriculture and social protection.

In parallel, DFID is increasing Rwandan citizens’ ability to hold government to account for delivery and more open political and economic space.

DFID is stepping up support to the private sector. DFID also supports economic growth and wealth creation in Rwanda by increasing land tenure regularisation and access to finance for the poor. DFID is also supporting the Government of Rwanda to protect the poorest people and the economy from the effects of a changing climate, and working with FCO to increase Rwanda’s global voice on climate change.

DFID Top 3 Results in Rwanda

| Indicators | Number of people benefiting from DFID-supported cash transfer programmes. | Number of children supported by DFID in primary education (per annum). | Number of births delivered with the help of nurses, midwives or doctors through DFID support. | |------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Results | In 2010-11, DFID provided money directly to 10,242 of the poorest people in Rwanda. | In 2011-12, DFID supported 18,117 children (9,733 boys and 8,384 girls) to complete primary school. | In 2010-11, DFID enabled 22,769 women to give birth with the help of a nurse, midwife or doctor. | | Context | 45% of Rwanda’s population live below the national poverty line in 2010-11, compared to 57% in 2005-06. Economic growth has been consistently high at an average of 8% per year with poorer households experiencing the highest levels of growth. | Primary completion rates increased from 52% in 2008-09 to 79% in 2010-11, mostly due to adoption in 2009 of a new policy of free lower secondary education. | 69% of births were attended by skilled personnel in 2010-11 compared to 39% in 2005. This is largely due to community health workers and community based health insurance. DFID sector budget support provides funding for community health workers. |

Our Operational Plan for Rwanda sets out our targets and how we plan to achieve these over the current spending review period 2012 to 15 here – DFID in Rwanda

______________________________________________________________________

19 Integrated Household Living Conditions survey (EICV3 – Enquête Intégrale sur les Conditions de Vie des Ménages) http://www.statistics.gov.rw/publications/third-integrated-household-living-conditions-survey-eicv-3-main-indicators-report

20 Demographic & Health Survey 2010 http://www.statistics.gov.rw/publications/demographic-and-health-survey-2010-final-report Sierra Leone

| MDG Indicator | Proportion of population below $1.25 a day | Net enrolment in primary education | Ratio of girls to boys in primary education | Under 5 mortality ratio | Maternal mortality ratio | HIV prevalence, 15-49 years old | Improved water source | |---------------|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------|----------------------| | Current Assessment | Amber | Grey | Green | Grey | Red | Grey | Grey |

Country Summary and Top Priorities

Sierra Leone is making good progress in recovering from a devastating civil war, but remains one of the world’s poorest countries. It is eighth from the bottom of the UN Human Development Index. The latest World Bank figures say its 5.7 million people have an average income of only US$340 per person.

The UK is playing a major role in helping restore the rule of law, improve basic services, and create the conditions for economic growth and poverty reduction. After a decade of peace, the country is now reaching an economic turning point, producing iron ore again after a 30 year gap, discovering offshore oil, and attracting new foreign and domestic investment. The UK aid programme is giving priority to promoting sound economic management and private sector growth, strengthening democracy and accountability, and boosting human development through improved basic services. Women and girls are a major focus of the programme.

Sierra Leone: Programmes by Sector 2011-12

Total Spend £55.8 million

Contribution to the MDGs

Sierra Leone is struggling to meet the MDGs, but important progress is being made. The UK aid programme in 2011-12 helped to promote economic growth and reduce poverty (MDG1), get more children in school (MDG2), reduce death rates among mothers and children (MDG4 and 5), and improve poor people’s access to clean water and sanitation (MDG7). Our programme is already having an important impact on reducing deaths from pregnancy and childbirth, getting more girls in school, and significantly increasing access to improved sanitation.

DFID Top 3 Results in Sierra Leone

| Indicators | Number of births delivered with the help of nurses, midwives or doctors through DFID support. | Number of people with sustainable access to an improved sanitation facility through DFID support. | Number of children supported by DFID in primary education (per annum). | |------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------| | Results | 29,509 more births attended through DFID funding. | 513,000 more people with access to improved sanitation. | 106,003 children supported, including 51,728 girls. | | Context | Almost 50% more results than expected, through DFID support to Sierra Leone’s ‘Free Healthcare Initiative’. This provides healthcare free of charge to mothers and children. | Over 25% more results than expected. | In 2011-12, DFID also helped provide free school meals to 256,727 poor and vulnerable children (including more than 125,000 girls) by supporting a UN school feeding programme. |

Our Operational Plan for Sierra Leone sets out our targets and how we plan to achieve these over the current spending review period 2012-15 – DFID – Sierra Leone Chapter 2: Results in DFID priority countries

Somalia

| MDG Indicator | Proportion of population below $1.25 a day | Net enrolment in primary education | Ratio of girls to boys in primary education | Under 5 mortality ratio | Maternal mortality ratio | HIV prevalence, 15-49 years old | Improved water source | |---------------|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|------------------------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------| | Current Assessment | Grey | Grey | Grey | Red | Red | Amber | Red |

Country Summary and Top Priorities

Somalia is a failed state suffering from 20 years of conflict leading to a chronic humanitarian crisis. This regional instability threatens the interests of other nations through terrorism, illegal migration and piracy. In a country of 9.3 million, 43% have income of less than $1/day PPP (2002).

UK spending in Somalia will increase significantly over the next four years to help the country become more stable and prosperous. It will reduce the threat it presents to the region and the UK. More than 40% of UK aid to the country will be directed at Somaliland, a more peaceful and democratic self-governing region. Progress there could help stability across the region.

Top Priorities

- governance and peace-building;
- wealth and job creation;
- healthcare, particularly for women and children; and
- humanitarian assistance.

Contribution to the MDGs

DFID’s Somalia programme helps tackle the MDGs:

Eradicating poverty and hunger. We have created 45,000 jobs this year, helping Somalia progress towards full and productive employment and decent work for all (MDG 1B), and have provided food aid to over 300,000 people (MDG 1C).

Improving maternal health. As a result of DFID’s programmes in Somalia this year, some 3,000 births were attended with the help of nurses, midwives or doctors (MDG 5A), and over 1,000 more women have access to contraceptives than did in 2010.

DFID Top 3 Results in Somalia

| Indicators | Number of additional jobs created. | Number of children under five and pregnant women reached through DFID’s nutrition-relevant programmes. | Number of births delivered with the help of nurses, midwives or doctors through DFID support. | |------------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------| | Results | 45,000 (22,500 women, 22,500 men). | 147,531 | 2,926 |

Context

The UK has supported market development and job generating programmes, enabling 45,000 Somalis to get jobs in 2011-12 in productive sectors. 685 jobs have been created in livestock production, 150 in fisheries and over 44,000 in agriculture.

East Africa is experiencing a major humanitarian crisis due to drought. More than 13 million people have been affected. Britain is providing lifesaving aid for over three million people across Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia.

A woman in Somalia is 300 times more likely to die during her lifetime from complications in pregnancy and childbirth than a woman in the UK. Only 9% of women have access to skilled birth attendance and less than 1% have caesarean sections.

Our Operational Plan for Somalia sets out our targets and how we plan to achieve these over the current spending review period 2012-15 – www.dfid.gov.uk/Where-we-work/Africa-Eastern--Southern/Somalia/

______________________________________________________________________

i World Bank, 2010, World Development Indicator database: http://databank.worldbank.org/ddp/home.do

ii UNDP/World Bank Socio-Economic Survey 2002 Somalia Southern Africa

| MDG Indicator | Proportion of population below $1.25 a day | Net enrolment in primary education | Ratio of girls to boys in primary education | Under 5 mortality ratio | Maternal mortality ratio | HIV prevalence, 15-49 years old | Improved water source | |---------------|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|------------------------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------| | Current Assessment | Green | Red | Red | Amber | Amber | Amber | Green |

Country Summary and Top Priorities

South Africa has the largest economy in sub-Saharan Africa but suffers one of the highest levels of inequality in the world, with some 14% of its 50 million people surviving on less than $1.25 a day. South Africa plays an important role in regional institutions such as the Africa Union and the South Africa Development Community (SADC). South Africa’s presence on the G20, BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and other groupings also mark its status as an emerging global power, willing and able to engage with issues affecting Africa and the world. DFID Southern Africa is increasingly working with South Africa on issues which have impact beyond its borders, such as regional trade and climate change.

Top priorities

DFID’s country priorities include tackling HIV and reducing maternal and child deaths, promoting inclusive and lower carbon growth, and preventing violence against women.

Contribution to the MDGs

Our programmes target poverty from three levels: working with South Africa to change the lives of its poorest people; working regionally on issues which cannot be tackled by single countries, such as reducing barriers to regional trade and improving management of trans-boundary rivers; and partnering with South Africa to influence global decisions which matter to us all, such as climate change negotiations.

For example, our support to building an effective and equitable health system is helping stem the spread of HIV and reduce maternal mortality. Our wealth creation programmes have helped save 850,000 jobs, keeping families from falling into poverty. And our support to climate negotiations hosted by South Africa (COP17) helped make the African voice heard, broadening ownership of decisions and enabling another step towards a global climate change agreement.

DFID Top 3 Results in South Africa

| Indicators | Number of jobs created or saved, including for women. | Mortality of those aged 25-29 years. | South Africa hosts a successful COP17 conference which delivers progress on the global negotiations and on climate finance. | |------------|------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Results | 850,000 jobs saved. | Reduced from 40,535 in 2011 to 39,319 in 2012 (3% reduction). | COP17 agreement demonstrates progress since COP16 and Green Fund is operational. | | Context | We helped make the case to hold back legislation which would have stopped labour brokers offering temporary employment. The proposed legislation did not proceed, saving 850,000 jobs. | DFID is helping build an effective, sustainable and equitable health system in South Africa, enabling massive expansion of anti-retroviral treatment and other programmes which cut mortality. | DFID support to pre-negotiations and significant African participation at Conference of Parties climate change negotiations (COP17) in Durban ensured African voice heard and influential in ensuring final successful negotiations which took the agenda forward from COP16. |

Our Operational Plan for Southern Africa sets out our targets and how we plan to achieve these over the current spending review period 2012-15 – DFID – South Africa

- Includes expenditure for South Africa country programme and Southern Africa regional programmes South Sudan

| MDG Indicator | Proportion of population below $1.25 a day | Net enrolment in primary education | Ratio of girls to boys in primary education | Under 5 mortality ratio | Maternal mortality ratio | HIV prevalence, 15-49 years old | Improved water source | |---------------|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------| | Current Assessment | Grey | Amber | Amber | Grey | Red | Grey | Grey |

Country Summary and Top Priorities

South Sudan became an independent country on 9 July 2011. It faces significant challenges; decades of war have left a legacy of chronic poverty, inequality, very little infrastructure, and continuing insecurity internally and externally. The population is 8.3 million with 51% living below the national poverty line. The data available reveals huge challenges to meeting the MDGs by 2015 with some of the worst indicators in the world for health and education. The decision by South Sudan to shutdown oil production which accounts for 80% of GDP and 98% of government revenue could potentially wipe out gains made so far. The UK’s work in South Sudan will be flexible, adapting to the impacts of the oil crisis. The core focus is currently on humanitarian assistance, livelihoods and supporting essential services in health and education. If the context allows, there will be a focus on essential peace and state-building objectives.

South Sudan: Programmes by Sector 2011-12\*

Total Spend £77.9 million

Contribution to the MDGs

The UK’s work in South Sudan is focused on addressing MDG challenges with a particular focus on girls, women and vulnerable groups:

**Eradicate poverty:** A new livelihoods programme will build resilience of communities to withstand multiple risks and future challenges and our humanitarian programme will address immediate needs.

**Education:** Programmes are supporting children in primary and secondary with a particular focus on girls especially through a new girls education programme.

**Child and maternal health:** The new health pooled fund will have a strong focus on improving the health status particularly of women and children.

**Ensure environmental sustainability:** Improved access to sustainable water sources and sanitation facilities will be provided mainly through the humanitarian programme.

DFID Top 3 Results in South Sudan

| Indicators | Number of people with access to sources of clean drinking water through DFID support. | Number of children supported by DFID in primary education per annum | Number of people reached by nutrition-related programmes through DFID support. | |------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------| | Results | 111,270 beneficiaries. | 12,266 beneficiaries, of them 4,946 girls. | 172,609 beneficiaries. | | Context | Through DFID’s contribution to the Basic Services Fund and the humanitarian programme. | DFID’s programmes have built classrooms and provided training for school management and continuous maintenance of schools. | Through DFID’s humanitarian programme in 2010 where we contributed 37% of the funding. |

- More than half of the activities reported as Governance and Security in this figure contribute directly to the delivery of basic health and education services for the citizens of South Sudan. Sudan

| MDG Indicator | Proportion of population below $1.25 a day | Net enrolment in primary education | Ratio of girls to boys in primary education | Under 5 mortality ratio | Maternal mortality ratio | HIV prevalence, 15-49 years old | Improved water source | |---------------|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|------------------------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------|----------------------| | Current Assessment | Grey | Grey | Grey | Red | Amber | Grey | Red |

Country Summary and Top Priorities

Decades of war have left Sudan with a legacy of chronic poverty, inequality, and continuing violence and insecurity. Following a referendum in January 2011, South Sudan gained independence from Sudan on 9 July, completing a historic transition from one country to two. Sudan’s population is 30,894,000 (2008) with 46.5% of the population below the national poverty line (2009).

The UK’s work in Sudan focuses on responding to the underlying causes of conflict and its impact on the poorest and most vulnerable in Sudan – displaced people, girls and women, the urban poor, and the disadvantaged young.

Top priorities

- tackle the impact of unequal allocation of finance and unequal access to basic services;
- reduce competition for resources such as land/water;
- improve the quality of governance; and
- increase communities’ ability to withstand the heaviest costs of conflict.

Contribution to the MDGs

- **Eradicating extreme poverty and hunger**: The nutrition situation in Sudan is poor, with high levels of chronic malnutrition and persistent levels of acute malnutrition. Our humanitarian programme targets 3 million people with health and nutrition-related programmes and 1.5 million people with food security and livelihoods assistance annually. New development programmes will provide 20,000 young people with education and training to improve employment potential and reduce poverty.

- **Ensure environmental sustainability**: The use of natural resources is unsustainable and progress has been slow on equitable access to water and sanitation with the national average masking wide regional differences. Our development programme will reach 800,000 people with sustainable sources of clean drinking water and our humanitarian support will increase access to sustainable sanitation facilities.

DFID Top 3 Results in Sudan

| Indicators | Number of people with access to clean drinking water sources through DFID support. | Number of people assisted with food security and livelihoods assistance through DFID support in Sudan. | Number of girls and women with improved access to security and justice services through DFID support. | |------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Results | 148,511 beneficiaries. | 602,392 beneficiaries. | 273,206 girls and women. | | Context | Support through humanitarian programmes. | Support through humanitarian programmes. | Support through a security and justice programme in Sudan. |

Our Operational Plan for Sudan sets out our targets and how we plan to achieve these over the current spending review period 2012-15 – [http://www.dfid.gov.uk/where-we-work/middle-east--north-africa/sudan/](http://www.dfid.gov.uk/where-we-work/middle-east--north-africa/sudan/) Tajikistan

| MDG Indicator | Proportion of population below $1.25 a day | Net enrolment in primary education | Ratio of girls to boys in primary education | Under 5 mortality ratio | Maternal mortality ratio | HIV prevalence, 15-49 years old | Improved water source | |---------------|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|------------------------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------|----------------------| | Current Assessment | Grey | Green | Red | Amber | Green | Amber | Green |

Country Summary and Top Priorities

Tajikistan is the poorest country in the Central Asia region (Tajikistan GNI per capita $800). The country is considered to be economically and politically fragile. A weak economic base and a small private sector mean that there are few growth opportunities. The population has nearly doubled since 1991 – it is currently some 7.6m. Tajikistan is one of the most remittance-dependent countries in the world ($2.4bn in 2010). Central Asia also has one of the fastest growing HIV epidemics in the world due to drug trafficking routes from Afghanistan passing through the region.

Top priorities

- wealth creation through private sector development, access to finance and rural growth promoting democracy and good governance (including management of public finances); and
- regional trade and cooperation, including migration.

Contribution to the MDGs

The poverty headcount ratio at $1.25 a day (PPP) was 6.6% of the population in 2009. DFID’s programmes in Tajikistan focus on promoting economic growth, especially in the rural economy as well as through promoting an improved business environment and strengthening corporate governance for private sector development. We support improved governance through a programme with other donors to help strengthen Public Finance Management (PFM) and the Government’s budget process. We also have a major regional programme to try to improve the the benefits from labour migration.

DFID Top 3 Results in Tajikistan

| Indicators | Results | Context | |------------|---------|---------| | Number of clients with access to finance (individual entrepreneurs and small/medium sized businesses) in Tajikistan. | Through our Rural Growth Programme, 3,544 entrepreneurs (of which 1,470 are women) received loans. 199 farms were able to access $966,300 of credit. | The average interest rate for loans is 25%-30%, and access to finance remains a major challenge for the private sector. We shall continue to help improve access to finance through strengthening microfinance agencies, creation of new finance products and an improved regulatory framework. | | Level of PFM Capacity measured by Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability indicators. | MTEF parameters are introduced in social protection ministries; 73 Treasury offices are fully automated; more than 100 finance officials are trained in new budget classification. | Poor institutional system and policy capacity, limited sources of revenues and inconsistent budget. | | Number of vulnerable people reached with HIV prevention services funded by DFID. | Total clients number in the period: 13,839 Injecting Drug Users: 7,831 Sex Workers: 4,591 Men having sex with men 587 Prisoners: 300 Ex-prisoners: 530. | The overall goal of the program is to slow down of the spread of HIV infection and achieve the MDG by providing the population with access to counter-HIV services. |

Our Operational Plan for Central Asia sets out our targets and how we plan to achieve these over the current spending review period 2012-15 – DFID – Tajikistan Tanzania

| MDG Indicator | Proportion of population below $1.25 a day | Net enrolment in primary education | Ratio of girls to boys in primary education | Under 5 mortality ratio | Maternal mortality ratio | HIV prevalence, 15-49 years old | Improved water source | |---------------|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|------------------------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------|----------------------| | Current Assessment | Red | Red | Green | Green | Red | Amber | Red |

Country Summary and Top Priorities

Tanzania is politically stable and has seen good economic growth over the last ten years, but this period has seen little reduction in income poverty. 70.5% of the population lives on less than $1.25 a day. The country has made strong progress in access to health, education and other basic services in the past decade, especially school enrolment with over 90% of children going to primary school. But challenges remain to improve the quality of services provided and reach everyone in need across this large and sparsely populated nation of 43 million people.

Our overarching objective is to see Tanzania reduce poverty levels and become independent from aid, requiring a shift to sustainable growth which delivers jobs and raises rural incomes.

Top priorities

- building on the progress made in education;
- improving reproductive and maternal health; and
- accelerating private sector development and job creation.

Contribution to the MDGs

DFID Tanzania’s programme is closely aligned to help Tanzania meet the MDGs, and address critical areas where the Tanzanian Government is unable to meet the needs of the poorest and most marginalised.

- Reducing poverty: by scaling up programmes to increase incomes of the rural poor, increase access to finance, improve resilience to climate change and reduce the cost of doing business.
- Improving child and maternal health: through new programmes addressing nutrition, malaria, family planning and access to reproductive and maternal health commodities.
- Education: providing support for children through primary and secondary school.
- Increasing access to safe drinking water: with a new programme that will reach 650,000 people in rural areas and particularly benefit girls and women.

DFID Top 3 Results in Tanzania

| Indicators | Number of children supported by DFID in primary and secondary education per annum. | Number of people supported to have choice and control over their own development and to hold decision makers to account. | Number of insecticide treated bed-nets distributed with DFID support. | |------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------| | Results | 2011-12: 457,000 (231,000 male, 225,000 female) | 2011-12: 4,144,704 | 2011-12: 726,008 |

Context

Working through the Government of Tanzania’s systems, DFID supported over 450,000 children in primary and lower secondary school (provisional figures), helping support a national primary enrolment rate of 94% in 2011.

Through our programmes this year, we have enabled over 4 million citizens to access quality, user-friendly information on entitlements, rights and services. This aims to help build a more accountable democratic state that better responds to people’s needs.

DFID Tanzania has helped replace two thirds of all insecticide treated bednets on Zanzibar, making a vital contribution to the control of this often deadly disease. We are also providing vouchers to all pregnant women in Tanzania to buy affordable bednets.

Our Operational Plan for Tanzania sets out our targets and how we plan to achieve these over the current spending review period 2012-15 – DFID – Tanzania Uganda

| MDG Indicator | Proportion of population below $1.25 a day | Net enrolment in primary education | Ratio of girls to boys in primary education | Under 5 mortality ratio | Maternal mortality ratio | HIV prevalence, 15-49 years old | Improved water source | |---------------|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------| | Current Assessment | Green | Grey | Green | Amber | Amber | Amber | Green |

Country Summary and Top Priorities

Uganda’s economic outlook remains positive despite high inflation, a slowdown in economic growth and a weakened governance environment following the 2011 elections. Revenue from oil production and increased regional economic integration are expected to move Uganda towards middle income status by 2040. The proportion of people living on less than $1.25 a day has fallen from 52% in 2005 to 38% in 2009. Despite this, high population growth and poor infrastructure continue to undermine the benefits of economic development for the majority of Uganda’s 34.5 million citizens.

Top priorities

- improve the quality of public services;
- support recovery in Northern Uganda;
- protect the poorest and most vulnerable;
- job creation;
- increased access to financial services and trade; and
- improve maternal and reproductive health.

Contribution to the MDGs

Uganda has made good progress towards the extreme poverty, hunger, gender equality, primary school enrolment and safe drinking water MDG targets. DFID’s programme therefore focuses primarily on rectifying the off-track maternal and child mortality targets by ensuring that women have access to modern family planning services and are attended by a skilled health worker while giving birth. We are investing in HIV prevention interventions to prevent a reverse in the HIV prevalence reductions made during the past decade. We are also targeting the poorest, particularly in the post-conflict North, by providing training and employment opportunities for the able bodied and social safety nets for the most vulnerable.

DFID Top 3 Results in Uganda

| Indicators | Number of people benefiting from DFID-supported cash transfer programmes. | Number of additional women using modern methods of family planning through DFID support. | Number of hours worked on public works projects in Karamoja. | |------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------| | Results | 16,828 (7,957 men and 8,871 women). | 132,344 (2011-12). | 15.92 million hours, equivalent to 43 days work per household. | | Context | 20% of Ugandans live in chronic poverty. DFID is piloting a cash transfer programme in 14 districts which will provide regular and predictable grants for 95,000 vulnerable households. This will embed social protection within the Government’s policy, planning and budgeting processes. | At 3.2%, Uganda has the third highest population growth rate in the world. DFID aims to help reduce unwanted pregnancies and maternal deaths in Uganda by increasing the contraceptive prevalence rate from 21.4% in 2010 to 33.5% in 2015. More than half a million women will benefit from modern family planning services funded by DFID. | The majority of Karamoja’s 1.2 million people have perennially relied on food aid. DFID is now providing the equivalent of 3kg of maize grain per day to 75,000 households in exchange for help in constructing community infrastructure such as roads and irrigation. This approach helps meet immediate nutritional needs while addressing the underlying causes of food insecurity. |

Our Operational Plan for Uganda sets out our targets and how we plan to achieve these over the current spending review period 2011-15 – DFID – Uganda Yemen

| MDG Indicator | Proportion of population below $1.25 a day | Net enrolment in primary education | Ratio of girls to boys in primary education | Under 5 mortality ratio | Maternal mortality ratio | HIV prevalence, 15-49 years old | Improved water source | |---------------|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|------------------------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------|----------------------| | Current Assessment | Grey | Red | Amber | Amber | Grey | Grey | Red |

Country Summary and Top Priorities

Yemen is the poorest country in the Middle East ranking 154th out of 187 countries in the UNDP Human Development Index. Its many challenges include high population growth, deteriorating economic prospects, political tensions and conflict, and weak governance. Months of political impasse in 2011 have left Yemen on the brink of economic collapse and exacerbated the existing humanitarian crisis. Food insecurity has almost doubled between 2009 and 2011, and there are 465,000 Internally Displaced Persons in the country. Preventing Yemen’s further decline remains vital.

DFID’s programme supports the UK government’s objectives of tackling increasing state fragility and addressing the grievances that fuel conflict.

Top priorities

- provide essential humanitarian assistance to the most vulnerable;
- improve access to basic services such as healthcare and water; and
- support economic development.

Contribution to the MDGs

Even before the protracted political, humanitarian and economic crises in Yemen, the country was off track against many of the MDGs. DFID’s programme aims to tackle these crises, in order to build the foundations for progress towards the MDGs. Our humanitarian programmes provide access to clean water, nutrition and healthcare to the most vulnerable Yemenis. DFID support to the Social Fund for Development (SFD) secures access to basic services, including schools, health centres, water and sanitation facilities in the poorest communities.

DFID Top 3 Results in Yemen

| Indicators | Number of people who vote in elections supported by DFID. | Number of people benefiting from DFID-supported cash transfer programmes. | Number of children under 5 vaccinated against measles and/or polio. | |------------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------| | Results | Preliminary figures show that 6.66m people voted in the DFID-supported 2012 elections. This vastly exceeded the 1.86m target. | DFID Yemen assisted 84,065 people through cash for work schemes 2011/12. | 72,080 children under 5 were vaccinated against measles and/or polio through our programmes in 2011/12. | | Context | Yemen interim presidential election on 21st February 2012 was a key milestone in the political transition process. | The Social Welfare Fund (SWF) provides regular cash transfers to the poorest households. Scaling up Cash for Works programmes through SFD helped the poorest people to access funds to help them through the crises. | The breakdown in basic health services in 2011 led to a large increase in measles cases and deaths, particularly among children. DFID is supporting a nationwide child vaccination programme. |

Our Operational Plan for Yemen sets out our targets and how we plan to achieve these over the current spending review period 2012-15 – [No operational plan available until June 2012]

______________________________________________________________________

21 United Nations International Human Development indicators 2011, [http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/YEM.html](http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/YEM.html) 22 Preliminary findings of the World Food Programme Comprehensive Food Security Survey (CFSS). 23 UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), February 2011. Zambia

| MDG Indicator | Proportion of population below $1.25 a day | Net enrolment in primary education | Ratio of girls to boys in primary education | Under 5 mortality ratio | Maternal mortality ratio | HIV prevalence, 15-49 years old | Improved water source | |---------------|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|------------------------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------------|----------------------| | Current Assessment | Red | Red | Green | Amber | Amber | Amber | Amber |

Country Summary and Top Priorities

Zambia has a population of 13 million people (nearly half under 15 years) dispersed over an area three times the size of the UK. A decade of strong growth and sound economic management has brought Zambia to lower middle income status. However, eight million people still live below the poverty line and almost half of Zambian children under five suffer from chronic malnutrition.

DFID’s key challenge is to help Zambia grow into a sustainable middle income country using its own resources, through private sector driven growth and investment, to meet the MDGs and graduate from aid. We will spend an average of £59 million per year in Zambia until 2015.

Top priorities

- strengthen service delivery capacity and decision making ability;
- provision of cash transfers;
- improve malaria and maternal mortality outcomes; and
- increase opportunities for rural wealth creation.

Zambia: Programmes by Sector 2011-12

| Sector | Total Spend £43.3 million | |--------|---------------------------| | Global partnerships | 0.3% | | Governance & security | 17.5% | | Education | 8.1% | | HIV/AIDS | 1.3% | | Malaria | 8.7% | | Other health | 20.6% | | Reproductive, maternal & newborn health | 16.3% | | Poverty, hunger & vulnerability | 11.2% | | Water & sanitation | 6.1% | | Wealth creation | 9.8% |

Contribution to the MDGs

The DFID Zambia programme is focused on directly addressing the most off-track MDGs, using a combination of cash transfers, maternal mortality interventions and programmes to improve sanitation and hygiene. In 2011/12, our cash transfer programme reached 96,300 poorest and most vulnerable beneficiaries, providing them with small but regular cash grants to improve their food security, increase their access to education and health services, and invest in small income generating activities. DFID support is helping to reduce Zambian vulnerability to HIV infection and malaria – we provided one million insecticide treated bed nets in 2011/12. We are also working with Government and other donors to empower and protect girls and women in order to make growth more inclusive and tackle inequality.

DFID Top 3 Results in Zambia

| Indicators | Number of people who vote in elections supported by DFID. | Number of people benefiting from DFID-supported cash transfer programmes. | Number of insecticide treated bed-nets distributed with DFID support. | |------------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------| | Results | Number of people voting in elections supported by DFID in 2011/12 reached 2.75 million. | Number of beneficiaries reached through DFID Zambia cash transfers programme in 2011/12 reached 96,300. | Number of insecticide treated bed nets distributed with DFID Zambia support reached one million. | | Context | This is 970,000 people more than those who voted in the 2008 elections. | This is an increase of 54,600 beneficiaries from the 2009 baseline of 41,700. We are on track to reach our 2015 target of 287,000 beneficiaries. | This has increased the cumulative number of insecticide treated bed nets to be distributed by 2015 to 2.4 million, as opposed to 1.4 million. |

Our Operational Plan for Zambia sets out our targets and how we plan to achieve these over the current spending review period 2012-15 – DFID – Zambia Zimbabwe

Country Summary and Top Priorities

Zimbabwe made exemplary progress towards the Millennium Development Goals indicators throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s. The economic and humanitarian crisis from 2000-08 stalled and in some cases starkly reversed many of these gains. Despite this Zimbabwe’s economy has recovered dramatically since 2009, enabling the provision of basic services to be restored. A comprehensive poverty survey, supported by DFID, will enable an accurate assessment of poverty levels in Zimbabwe to be made later this year.

Top priorities

- help to strengthen democracy, including support to constitutional reform, elections and economic governance;
- creation of economic opportunities; and
- improve education, maternal and child health and water and sanitation.

Contribution to the MDGs

With progress towards the Millennium Development Goals in Zimbabwe lagging, especially in health and education, DFID’s programme is focused on providing support to these two sectors. In 2011/12 this included:

- Supporting over 86,000 children to attend primary school and 6,000 girls to attend lower secondary education
- Enabling over 25,000 births to be delivered with the assistance of a trained health professional
- Supporting over 10,000 children to complete primary school.

DFID Top 3 Results in Zimbabwe

| Indicators | Results | Context | |------------|---------|---------| | Numbers of children supported by DFID in primary school per annum. | 86,402 children in primary education (42,337 girls; 44,065 boys). | DFID’s support to the education is largely through the Education Transition Fund (ETF) managed by UNICEF. Includes textbook provision, and improving school management. | | Number of children completing primary education supported by DFID. | 10,304 children to complete primary education (5,049 girls; 5,255 boys). | DFID’s support to the education is largely through the Education Transition Fund (ETF) managed by UNICEF. Includes textbook provision, and improving school management. | | Number of births delivered with the help of nurses, midwives or doctors through DFID support. | 25,650 births to be delivered with the help of nurses, midwives or doctors. | Result delivered through the Saving Maternal and Newborn Lives programme implemented by UNFPA and UNICEF. Includes a focus on access to neo and post natal, and obstetric care. |

Our Operational Plan for Zimbabwe sets out our targets and how we plan to achieve these over the current spending review period 2012-15 – DFID – Zimbabwe Overseas Territories

2.8 DFID will continue to manage the UK Government’s legal and moral obligation to meet the reasonable needs of the Overseas Territories. There are fourteen Overseas Territories, four of which currently qualify for development assistance and receive aid from the UK Government. Unlike DFID’s country aid relationships, however, our support to the aided Territories is not discretionary.

2.9 A new White Paper on the Overseas Territories was published on 25 June 2012. This sets out an ambitious vision of the Overseas Territories with flourishing communities, growing economies, soundly managed public finances, and where the Territories can draw on strong technical support from a wide range of Whitehall departments.

2.10 This vision is reflected in the approach which DFID Ministers have outlined for our work in the aided Territories. Where conditions are right, Ministers will make strategic investments that will put the aided Territories onto a faster track to financial independence. Substantial public investments will be considered where these can stimulate wider economic activity led by the private sector.

2.11 DFID’s Overseas Territories Department Operational Plan sets out how we are working to realise this vision. The new approach Ministers have set out for the Overseas Territories has already led to important results over the past year:

- In November 2011, Ministers agreed to build an airport in St Helena. The airport is the largest single investment ever made in a Territory. It offers the best prospect for the island to reduce and eventually eliminate its dependence on UK subsidies. The airport is scheduled to open towards the end of 2015.
- Ministers have agreed to use public funds to explore and drill for geothermal energy in Montserrat. Geothermal energy holds out the prospect of cheaper and much cleaner energy for Montserrat. This could also be important for attracting new businesses to the island.
- A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed between UK and Government of Montserrat in May 2012. The MoU aims to promote policy reforms that are needed to encourage investment and private sector-led growth in Montserrat.

Responding to humanitarian emergencies

2.12 In February 2011 DFID provided a loan guarantee of up to US$260m to the Government of the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCIG) for a period of five years in order to allow TCIG the time it needed to turn around its dire financial situation. By the end of March 2012, the TCIG had drawn on US$185m of this facility. Progress made in a number of reform areas, including public financial management, mean that the first democratic elections in TCI since the constitution was suspended in 2009 can be held on 9 November 2012. DFID will retain a Chief Financial Officer on the territory while the guarantee is in place with powers that will enable the UK to retain sufficient financial control over public finances and so protect the interests of the UK as loan guarantor.

2.13 DFID leads the Government response to humanitarian emergencies anywhere in the world. In the past year DFID has responded to some major humanitarian emergencies, including in: the Horn of Africa; Libya; Liberia; and Syria. In the Horn of Africa, Britain led the world in tackling food insecurity in the last year. Since July 2011, British support has fed over 3.3 million people across the Horn of Africa, supplied measles vaccinations for 1.3 million people, emergency nutrition supplements for 500,000 children and clean water and sanitation for 1.2 million people. 2.14 DFID provided support following post-election violence in the Ivory Coast in November 2010, which led to a major refugee influx into Liberia. DFID provided life-saving support in the form of: safe drinking water and adequate sanitation to over 175,000 people; food assistance to over 100,000 people; essential household non-food items to over 77,000 people; and almost 100,000 refugees received food, shelter and healthcare provision.

2.15 The UK was one of the first to respond to the growing humanitarian needs of the Syrian people during 2011 and into 2012. The UK provided nearly 120,000 people with emergency food supplies, as well as delivering life-saving medical care, food, and clean water for tens of thousands of people in Syria. The UK also provided support for Iraqi and Palestinian refugees in Syria, as well as Syrian refugees in the region, via our support to the UN High Commission for Refugees, the UN Relief and Works Agency, and other humanitarian organisations. The UK is continuing to provide vital life-saving support in the on-going response.

2.16 The UK was once again one of the first to provide vital humanitarian support to those affected by the conflict in Libya. Our early action in providing emergency shelter supplies and flying over 12,700 people home from the border camps helped prevent a logistical problem from developing into a humanitarian crisis. Post-conflict, UK humanitarian support continues to play an important role in addressing remaining humanitarian concerns and in supporting early recovery efforts.

Implementation of the Humanitarian Emergency Response Review (HERR)

2.17 The Government response to Lord Ashdown’s Humanitarian Emergency Response Review (HERR) was published in June 2011. This committed the Government to a series of recommendations to improve and reinforce the British response to humanitarian emergencies. Key milestones in implementation included:

- DFID’s new Humanitarian Policy published in September. It outlines how the UK will help build resilience to humanitarian emergencies and respond to need resulting from conflict and natural disasters.
- The Rapid Response Facility established in January; this will enable DFID to provide faster funding to pre-qualified partners and to better access the capability of the private sector to help people affected by humanitarian emergencies.
- A strategy for investment in humanitarian research and innovation agreed in January. This aims to improve humanitarian delivery, promote greater use of evidence in humanitarian decision making and help develop innovative life saving technologies.
- The Global Resilience Action Programme agreed: the programme will be launched in 2012 and will be a new partnership with non-Governmental organisations and the private sector to help build resilience in countries most vulnerable to humanitarian emergencies and to improve the quality and impact of the humanitarian response. CHAPTER 3:

Delivering through Multilateral Organisations

3.1 This section focuses on DFID’s engagement with the multilateral system and delivery of results through these partners.

3.2 DFID delivered 44% of its total programme expenditure in 2011/12 through central or core funding to multilateral organisations (£3.4 billion(^2) out of a total programme spend of £7.7 billion) DFID’s main multilateral delivery partners in 2011-12 were the European Commission, International Financial Institutions (including the World Bank and the African and Asian Development Banks), Global Funds (including the GAVI Alliance and Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria) and United Nations and humanitarian organisations. The chart below shows the distribution of central or core DFID funding across these organisations.

DFID Multilateral Spend in £ millions (%)

- World Bank, 953, (28%)
- Regional Development Banks, 267, (8%)
- EU Development & EDF, 1,355, (39%)
- UN & Commonwealth, 225, (7%)
- Other Multilateral, 631, (18%)

3.3 The DFID results framework monitors headline outputs delivered by 19 of the UK’s core-funded multilateral organisations, see Table D on multilateral results in Chapter 1. A range of results delivered by other core-funded multilateral partners is set out in Table E (also in Chapter 1). As these tables make clear, the multilateral organisations make a critically important contribution to achieving international development and humanitarian objectives globally, including in countries where DFID has no bilateral presence.

3.4 On 1 March 2011, the UK published its first Multilateral Aid Review (MAR)(^2). This confirmed that the multilateral system is a crucial complement to what the UK Government can do alone. But it also found evidence of significant weaknesses. The MAR identified a reform agenda for every organisation. It found that there were seven main reform priorities across the multilateral system, many of which are also important priorities for improving the effectiveness and impact of DFID’s bilateral programme:

______________________________________________________________________

(^2) These figures and pie-chart exclude funding to some organisations who were covered in the Multilateral Aid Review but not included on the DAC list of multilaterals, therefore figures will differ from those presented in Figure 1.6.

(^2) Available to download at: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/what-we-do/how-uk-aid-is-spent/a-new-direction-for-uk-aid/multilateral-aid-review/ accountability for results

- delivery of efficiency savings and value for money in programming
- transparency and accountability
- delivering for girls and women
- working in fragile contexts
- partnership behaviour
- human resource management

3.5 Since the MAR was published DFID has drawn on its value for money assessment to decide on funding through multilateral organisations. This includes ending funding to some agencies and putting others onto ‘special measures’. DFID is ready to reduce funding or withdraw from poorly performing agencies if there is no progress on the reform we have identified. Equally, while pressing for reform in all multilaterals, DFID has given a strong backing to organisations shown to be high performers in the MAR. The example of GAVI, which the MAR found to offer very good value for money for UK aid is detailed below.

UK makes a commitment to vaccinate one child every two seconds for five years

GAVI Pledging Conference, 13 June 2011

The UK co-hosted the first GAVI pledging conference with Bill Gates and the President of Liberia, HE Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf. The conference was a resounding success.

International leaders committed not only to immunise more than 250 million children and save more than 4 million lives by 2015, but to also pledge $4.3 billion of additional funding against the initial target of US$3.7bn.

The Prime Minister opened the event with the UK announcement which alone will vaccinate 80 million children and save 1.4 million lives by 2015 – that’s one child vaccinated every two seconds and a life saved every two minutes for five years. The success of the public-private partnership brought together all stakeholders in immunisation. Commitments included significant increases from traditional donors (the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Norway, Australia); new donors (Japan and Korea), and developing country manufacturers offering price reductions on rotavirus and human papillomavirus vaccines (HPV).

A new private sector ‘Match Fund for Immunisation’ supported by Gates and the UK brought in new private sector funding partners including Anglo American, Absolute Return for Kids and more recently JP Morgan and Comic Relief. Developing countries also committed to maintain or increase the co-financing of their vaccine programmes. GAVI estimates the total level of co-financing will triple to US$100m by 2015.

As a result of the pledging conference, the pneumococcal vaccine has now been rolled out in Ethiopia, Burundi, Central African Republic, Benin, Cameroon and Rwanda. Sudan was the first Africa country to receive the rotavirus vaccine in July 2011. Funding raised in June has enabled GAVI to approve a further 18 country applications for pneumococcal vaccines and 16 countries to introduce rotavirus vaccine. Ghana historically became the first country to roll out both rotavirus and pneumococcal vaccine simultaneously in April 2012.

3.6 DFID will update its assessment of all the multilaterals that it continues to fund in 2013.

3.7 Table L below provides a brief overview of DFID’s main multilateral partners. A full list of abbreviations is given in Annex D: Glossary, Abbreviations and Sources.

### Table L: The Multilaterals

| Organization | Description | |-------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | **World Bank** | Provides interest free credits, grants and advice to the poorest countries in the world through its concessional arm, the International Development Association (IDA). Non-concessional lending is provided through the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), which helps middle income and credit-worthy poorer countries to access loans on better terms than they could receive on the open market to reduce poverty. | | **Regional Development Banks**| Provide loans, grants and advice to help countries and regions achieve the MDGs, with concessional resources focused on the poorest countries. The UK is a member of the African, Asia, Caribbean and Inter-American Development Banks (AfDB, AsDB, CDB and IADB). The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) supports transition towards democratic market economies in Europe’s neighbourhood, which, from September 2011, now includes the southern and eastern Mediterranean. | | **International Monetary Fund (IMF)** | DFID continues to work closely with Her Majesty’s Treasury on the IMF’s approach to Low Income Countries (LICs). The UK is a strong supporter of ensuring the sustainability of funding of the IMF’s Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust that provides concessional finance to LICs. DFID has also continued to engage with the IMF on how best to provide effective support to fragile and conflict-affected states. | | **European Commission** | The EU has development programmes in all regions of the world and is often valued for its capacity to join up policies on trade, agriculture and foreign policy with development. delivers aid through the European Development Fund (EDF) and other instruments, and has a strong humanitarian arm, ECHO. | | **United Nations** | The UN has an unparalleled legitimacy, credibility and authority stemming from its universal membership. DFID provides core funding to UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA, UN Women, FAO, IFAD, OHCHR, WHO, UNAIDS and UNESCO, supporting their work on issues such as human development, crisis prevention and recovery, democratic governance, population, health, HIV/AIDS, human rights, children’s rights, gender equality, food, agriculture and education. | | **Commonwealth** | The Commonwealth is a voluntary association of 54 member states that share a common set of core values around human rights, democracy and development. Commonwealth organisations supported by DFID provide technical advice to governments and promote learning opportunities for citizens of poorer Commonwealth countries. The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth, Australia, in October 2011 agreed action to promote development in key areas across the Commonwealth, including climate change, food security, health and equality. | | **Humanitarian** | The humanitarian agencies provide relief to people affected by humanitarian crises, including natural disasters and conflict. They include UN organisations for refugees (UNHCR), food (WFP), migration (IOM), humanitarian co-ordination (OCHA) and emergency response funding (CERF) as well as the international and national Red Cross (ICRC and IFRC). The Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) focuses on building people’s resilience so that they are better prepared to resist and recover from a disaster. |

______________________________________________________________________

26 DFID supports the Commonwealth Secretariat, Commonwealth Foundation, Commonwealth Scholarship Commission, Commonwealth of Learning and Commonwealth Local Government Forum.

27 Further information on the Humanitarian agencies is available in Chapter 2. Global Funds

The global funds work to achieve the Millennium Development Goals for health and education in poor countries, often in partnership with non-governmental organisations and the private sector. They deliver financing to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria (GFATM), improve access to treatments for the three diseases (UNITAID), increase availability of underused and new vaccines (GAVI), and support education (GPE).

Climate Funds

The Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) are supporting developing countries to adapt to climate change and develop in a low carbon way. The UN Least Developed Countries Fund and UN Adaptation Fund support adaptation actions whilst the Global Environment Facility (GEF) helps address global environmental issues.

Private Sector

The Private Infrastructure Development Group (PIDG) and the International Finance Corporation (IFC – a self-financing member of the World Bank Group) support private investment and wealth creation in developing countries.

3.8 The rest of this chapter reports on the progress that has been made during 2011/12 against the seven reform areas listed in para 3.4.

Accountability for results

3.9 There is international agreement about the importance of improving the monitoring and communication of results by all development actors, including multilateral and bilateral organisations as well as developing countries themselves. Participants at the November 2011 Fourth High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan agreed to strengthen efforts to achieve concrete and sustainable results, including by improving their management for results. The MAR found that most multilaterals need to do more to demonstrate their contribution to results and improve management to achieve the maximum impact.

3.10 Some progress has been made. UNDP, UNICEF and UNFPA have all endorsed the need for, and begun to develop, robust results frameworks for their new Strategic Plans. UNAIDS, FAO and IFAD have all updated and strengthened their results frameworks and the Commonwealth Secretariat continues to improve its results management and measuring system. Meanwhile, UNESCO and WHO have reform agendas which include improving their results focus.

3.11 Following the example of the AsDB, most Multilateral Development Banks are making good progress on measuring and reporting their results. The World Bank has adopted an institution-wide Corporate Scorecard for measuring progress, to be presented annually to Governors. The new President of the Caribbean Development Bank has set up a group to address issues raised in the MAR.

3.12 The negotiations over the next long-term EU budget (2014-20) provide an opportunity to influence the design of the EU’s aid instruments and future priorities. The proposals for the new budget commit the EU to focus more on demonstrating results as well as an increased focus on the poorest countries. As a result of UK lobbying the European Commission has committed to the development of a new results framework for the 2014-20 programming period, based on DFID’s own results framework and other good practice examples. The UK will continue to work with the European Commission to ensure that results, transparency and accountability are a central part of negotiations on the new budget as well as all development policies for the EU.

3.13 Meanwhile, the GEF introduced a revised results based management framework in 2011 and the CIFs have agreed to measure the impact on development and reducing poverty in all programmes and projects from 2013. Delivery of efficiency savings and value for money

3.14 The MAR found that most multilaterals need to focus more on value for money. There are two aspects to this. Firstly they need to cut unnecessary administrative costs and deliver efficiency savings, including through their purchasing decisions. Secondly they need to place a greater emphasis on securing value for money in their programming choices. But there has been progress.

Cost savings

3.15 Budget negotiations in 2011 for UNDP, UNICEF, WHO and FAO resulted in zero growth administrative budgets for 2012/13. For UNDP and UNICEF these represented savings of 5% and 5.3% respectively. FAO’s budget includes additional efficiency savings of $36.5 million (3.6%) whilst UNESCO also adopted an inflation free budget across the board, resulting in savings of $35m (5.4%). Meanwhile UNAIDS has reduced its operating costs by a total of $15m during the 2010-11 biennium, including a 25% reduction in travel costs.

3.16 At the same time, by February 2012, UNICEF had secured price reductions from industry and through special financial mechanisms, in vaccines (Rotavirus, Polio and Hib-containing pentavalent), and bed nets that will result in cost savings or cost avoidances of over $735 million over the next five years (2012-2016) for governments, partners and UNICEF.

3.17 Among Multilateral Development Banks, the AsDB committed to a 2% annual productivity improvement in 2012 and the AfDB identified efficiency savings in its 2012 administrative budget. The World Bank remains committed to a flat real administrative budget and its Corporate Scorecard tracks the time required to prepare projects and the costs associated with project preparation.

Value for money in programming

3.18 DFID is working with the European Commission and EU Member States to ensure that EU development programmes have a greater focus on the poorest countries. The EU is reviewing its entire approach to aid: cutting funding to countries with higher per capita incomes – such as relatively rich nations in Latin America; refocusing its aid on results; and ensuring much greater transparency, value for money and accountability.

3.19 DFID’s priority for the health Global Funds on cost effectiveness is to drive down commodity prices. To achieve this, GAVI has revised its Procurement and Supply Strategy. At their pledging conference in June 2011 manufacturers agreed to reduce the cost of new vaccines. For example GlaxoSmithKline will provide the rotavirus vaccine at $2.50 per dose which is a 67% reduction from the current lowest price.

3.20 GFATM established a High-Level Independent Review Panel on Fiduciary Controls and Oversight Mechanism in March 2011 after reports of misappropriation of grant funds in some countries. The panel reported in September and made recommendations to improve oversight, simplify grant application processes, and establish a robust risk management framework. The new Governance structure, including an Investment Committee, will look at value for money across the portfolio.

3.21 UNAIDS has worked with country partners (including DFID) on the implementation of the UNAIDS Investment Framework. This will result in more focused and strategic use of country resources and improve national HIV responses. Reform in the Global Fund to Fight Aids, TB and Malaria

The Global Fund has embarked on an extraordinary package of organisational, management and strategic reforms, designed to make the organisation more effective and efficient, regain full donor confidence and deliver improved and targeted high impact services to the people that need them most. Driven in part by allegations and instances of fraud and mismanagement in some programmes, and financial constraints on the volume of funds available for new programmes, a suite of comprehensive and far reaching reforms is underway which will change the way the Fund does business. No more traditional, annual Rounds of funding where countries bid for but cannot be assured of funding. Instead, a new, iterative approach is being developed to help countries design programmes that are fit for funding.

The reforms reach into all parts of the Fund’s way of operating, from its overall governance, human resource deployment, strategic focus on countries, more effective grant management, increased financial transparency and discipline, and better management of risk. The transformation package is ambitious but will streamline and structure the Fund to address previous weaknesses and to ensure it is fit for purpose. The reforms will help ensure that the resources have high impact at country level in tackling the three diseases.

Transparency and accountability

3.22 The MAR found that most multilateral organisations needed to improve their transparency and accountability. DFID wants all multilateral organisations to have a culture of openness and make comprehensive information about their policies and projects readily available to outsiders. We are looking for compliance with the standards set by the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) and the commitments on transparency in the Outcome Document from the Busan High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness.

3.23 DFID has pressed multilaterals to improve their transparency and there has been progress in 2011/12. In May 2011, the World Bank became the first multilateral agency to publish their aid data to the IATI standard. The campaign organisation Publish What You Fund rated the Bank as the best performer in its 2011 pilot Aid Transparency Index. In the run up to Busan, the AfDB and IADB became new IATI signatories while the AsDB and GFATM now publish to the IATI standard. The EC is also a signatory, has published data in line with IATI standards and is well on its way to full implementation in 2012.

3.24 There has also been progress among UN agencies. UNDP was the first UN organisation to sign up to IATI and has now published data to its standards. IFAD has implemented a full disclosure policy and signed up to IATI in November 2011. UNICEF, UNFPA and UN Women signed up to IATI in 2012.

3.25 Finally, information on historical vaccine prices is now available on the GAVI and UNICEF websites. GAVI is also publishing the details of on-going country audits.

Delivering for girls and women

3.26 The MAR found that most multilaterals need to do more to deliver for women and girls in developing countries. Some still need to develop formal policies on gender while others need to make sure that existing policies feed through into impact on the ground.

3.27 However, the World Bank gave gender issues prominence internationally with its World Development Report on Gender Equality and Development and adoption of gender as the focus for the 2011 Annual Meetings. The Bank also committed to hold itself accountable against gender mainstreaming targets that assess the impacts on girls and women of any Bank action. 3.28 UN Women was formally created in 2011 and is expected to improve the UN’s collective response on gender through its programmes supporting women’s leadership, economic empowerment and prevention of violence against women and girls. UNDP and UNICEF have made progress in developing Gender Equality Markers which allow them to track the allocation and expenditure of resources in relation to gender focused results.

3.29 The EBRD has published country gender profiles for all the countries it works with. Similarly the EU action plan on gender has ensured the EC has prioritised its support to girls and women.

3.30 The GPE has confirmed girls’ education as one of three key policy priorities. GAVI has prioritised the delivery of human papillomavirus which will help prevent cervical cancer in young women and both GAVI and UNITAID are providing new disaggregated data that looks specifically at gender.

3.31 Finally, the GEF has introduced a policy on gender mainstreaming in 2011 which requires projects to demonstrate adherence to standards on gender.

**Working in fragile contexts**

3.32 There has been some progress but many difficult challenges remain. Many multilaterals need to improve their delivery in fragile states. Some do not have a strong enough local presence to be fully effective. Others are not flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances.

3.33 These issues were put under the spotlight by the World Bank’s 2011 *World Development Report on Conflict, Security and Development* and the 2011 Report to the UN Secretary General on civilian capacity in the aftermath of conflict. At the Busan High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, a number of countries and international organisations endorsed an agreement, promoted by a group of fragile states, on a new global direction for engagement with fragile states. This New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States was endorsed by the following multilaterals: the African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, the European Union, the UN Development Group and the World Bank.

3.34 Together with the World Bank Group, the AfDB and EBRD are playing an important role in the international response to the Arab Spring. The AfDB has approved a new programme to support enterprise growth and job creation in Tunisia. The World Bank is reorientating its programmes to specifically address the social and economic challenges that gave rise to the uprisings. For example, in Morocco the World Bank is providing three new loans to promote job creation, restore economic growth and improve competitiveness.

3.35 The UK is also a member of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), which supports transition towards democratic market economies in central Europe and from the western Balkans to central Asia. In September 2011 EBRD Governors voted unanimously in favour of expanding the Bank’s geographical mandate to include the southern and eastern Mediterranean (SEMED). A Cooperation Fund has been established to provide Technical Assistance to the region prior to full investment activity commencing. The UK has made a £5m contribution to the SEMED fund from its Arab Partnership Economic Facility, with an emphasis on SME development and inclusive growth. At the Bank’s Annual Meeting in May 2012, Governors approved a net income allocation of €1 billion for Special Fund lending in the region.

3.36 UK support for the UN includes a pledge to provide an additional contribution of up to £55 million to the UN Peacebuilding Fund for the period 2011-15, based on the positive assessment of the Fund in the MAR. 3.37 Elsewhere, the establishment of a Centre for Conflict, Security and Development, the ‘Nairobi Hub’, by the World Bank and its appointment of a Director for Conflict and Fragility in July 2011 provided increased impetus to address these issues. At the same time, the AfDB is decentralising its operations which will have a positive impact on its performance in fragile states. It opened new offices in Burundi, Central African Republic, Liberia and Togo in 2011.

3.38 The EU already operates in over 150 countries and is designing new ‘statebuilding contracts’ as part of its latest budget proposals to provide tailored support to countries in or at risk of violent conflict.

3.39 Finally, the GPE Board has agreed a new resource allocation framework which prioritises allocations to fragile states, including Pakistan.

**Partnership behaviour**

3.40 The importance of different parts of the international development system working well together was recognised in the 2011 World Development Report on Conflict, Security and Development and the International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding.

3.41 But while some multilaterals such as the AsDB and the World Bank are addressing the issues of partnerships, it is too early to see substantive change across the multilaterals as a whole. There is also room for improvement even in those which are showing progress – World Bank clients continue to raise concerns about what they see as cumbersome rules for investment lending and the Bank’s inability to use countries’ own systems.

3.42 The World Bank’s recent decision to adopt the new ‘Programme for Results’ instrument (P4R) in part responds to these concerns. Under P4R, the World Bank will pay out funds to reflect achieved results, thereby enabling countries to have greater freedom to innovate and maximise impact.

3.43 Finally, in the private sector, stronger partnerships with DFID country offices are a priority for both IFC and PIDG. Through the DFID funded Global Small and Medium Enterprises programme IFC is partnering with DFID Mozambique and Nigeria. Meanwhile PIDG has been exploring joint programmes with DFID country offices in Asia and Africa.

**Human resource management**

3.44 The MAR found that poor human resource systems are undermining effective delivery in many multilateral organisations, particularly in fragile states. They need high quality human resource management systems, with transparent and merit-based recruitment and promotion, and performance-based systems.

3.45 Some action has been taken by multilateral organisations to address this, but as yet it is not possible to judge whether this will result in concrete progress.

3.46 Elsewhere, the new Development and Cooperation Directorate at the European Commission has taken steps to make better use of its technical and advisory staff by moving them to the relevant geographical departments. 3.47 More broadly, leadership was a key theme of the Humanitarian Emergency Response Review (HERR) which was commissioned by DFID and reported in March 2011. Several humanitarian agencies have started to take action, including UNHCR which has established a Senior Emergency Roster and a Senior Emergency Leadership Training scheme to improve its deployment of resources. The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) has introduced a staff evaluation system allowing staff to monitor their performance against standard competency indicators.

3.48 Finally, DFID is working with the UN Development Operations Coordination Office to improve UN leadership and coordination in-country, essential for effective delivery of results and UN reform on the ground. This included country support for Resident Coordinators and providing additional support to their offices. This has led to greater coordination and joint programming in some of DFID’s highest priority countries, such as DRC and Somalia. We have also been working closely with humanitarian agencies to encourage them to deliver their own leadership goals within the ‘Transformative Agenda’ of the Inter Agency Standing Committee (the committee of UN and NGO humanitarian agencies).

28 Available to download at: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/what-we-do/key-issues/humanitarian-disasters-and-emergencies/how-we-respond/humanitarian-emergency-response-review/ CHAPTER 4:

Making UK Aid more Effective

Results and Value for Money

4.1 DFID has taken seriously the responsibility that comes with an increasing programme at a time when its administration costs are constrained. It has placed results and value for money at the heart of its programme investments and management – from allocation policy through approval, review and evaluation. Following the Department’s root and branch reviews of all its spending last year, DFID published its first set of operational plans in April 2011, setting out what programmes will achieve over the Spending Review period. The DFID Results Framework published in November 2011 set out the key measures for monitoring performance at 4 levels: progress against Millennium Development Goals; DFID results; operational effectiveness; and organisational efficiency. DFID increased its capability to monitor and report results against appropriate indicators with clear methodologies, consistently applied. DFID’s results are reported in Chapter 2 of this annual report.

4.2 DFID has continued to strengthen the way that it manages individual development programmes. All Departmental investments require a clear value for money assessment set within a business case based on the Treasury good practice model. A new Quality Assurance Unit was created in April 2011 to provide better critical analysis of the value for money of DFID investments on the basis of evidence provided in DFID business cases. All large scale projects of £40m+ are subject to quality assurance. In January 2012, DFID introduced a new approach to annual reviews and project scoring which gives improved information about whether the programme has delivered the intended results over the last year and whether it remains good value for money – prompting action accordingly.

4.3 DFID is piloting a new form of results-orientated financing. Payment by results (PBR) makes payments contingent on the independent verification of pre-agreed results, encouraging recipients to innovate and minimise waste. In Ethiopia and Rwanda we have PBR pilots that focus on improving education results and in Northern Uganda we are using PBR arrangements to improve health outcomes. We are building independent evaluation into our pilots to ensure that we build an evidence base of how PBR operates and that we learn effectively from this innovative work. Improving Results and Value for Money in Education

By 2014–15, the UK will support 11 million children in school through the bilateral programme. We recognise that getting children into school is not enough. Once there, children must be well taught. So, all new DFID education programmes support and monitor learning outcomes, from improvements in national learning assessments (Ethiopia) to specific increases in literacy rates (Nigeria).

In its education focus countries, DFID is planning or already supporting initiatives to raise public awareness of students’ learning achievements or increase community say in school decision-making. This gives parents the opportunity to hold schools and teachers to account e.g. for teacher absenteeism. Initiatives include school report cards (Ethiopia, Ghana, Mozambique, Nigeria, India and Sierra Leone), creation of school management committees (Bangladesh, Ghana, Nigeria, India, Sierra Leone) and community assessment of student learning (Tanzania, Pakistan, Kenya).

DFID staff are identifying opportunities to reduce unit costs, without compromising education quality. In all 20 DFID education focus countries, DFID is systematically tracking the unit costs of key education inputs: teacher salaries; teacher training; textbooks; school/classroom construction; girls’ education stipends. DFID is pursuing value for money in ways that work locally. For example, DFID Rwanda worked with the Ministry of Education to reduce classroom costs by 45%. Pakistan, comparison of construction costs highlighted possible cost saving through non-government provision and led to a shift in funding away from government providers to utilise these savings.

4.4 DFID plans to commission more than 300 evaluations over the next 5 years, including more rigorous impact evaluation. DFID has created 27 front line posts which focus on evaluation. DFID continues to work with international partners to strengthen recipient countries capacity for delivering high-quality, relevant evaluation studies as well as harmonising evaluation approaches with other aid agencies.

4.5 DFID published a Finance Improvement Plan in September. The plan sets out its vision for financial management, describing the expectations of staff in different roles. It includes the activities, milestones and outcomes against which we will assess our progress over the next three years and be held to account.

4.6 Driving down costs through DFID’s commercial relationships is important. DFID has strengthened its commercial capability as a result of a Procurement Capability Review. DFID has made good progress in implementing its commercial strategy. It now brings more of its funding into competitive mechanisms, is implementing a more strategic approach to procurement, and monitors performance against procurement savings targets. Value for money has improved through co-ordinating procurement of common services better across DFID.

4.7 During 2011/12, DFID achieved additional savings of £63m from improved procurement practice. We have strengthened capacity in the central procurement team so that as the aid programme grows we can continue to improve the value for money from every contract.

4.8 DFID aid has been untied since 2001. Untying aid means that partner countries and DFID are able to ensure that goods and services are obtained in the most cost-effective way. This gives greater opportunity for local providers. DFID does not have targets or quotas for business awarded to developing country suppliers. Busan: The Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness

2011 was a critical year for improving aid effectiveness and impact. At the end of November, the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness took place in Busan, Republic of Korea, where agreement was reached to establish a new Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation. This Partnership recognised new shared principles and common goals for development cooperation, and was endorsed by a broader and more inclusive set of partners than ever before, including donors and developing countries, emerging economies, civil society, parliamentarians and private sector.

DFID’s priorities for the Forum were to seek international agreement to increase the focus on development results, improve the transparency of aid and other development spending, and to establish more effective ways of engaging in fragile states. Each of these was achieved, with agreement on new shared principles on results and transparency, and endorsement of the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States. The UK also played a key role in encouraging emerging economies to participate in the new Global Partnership.

DFID’s approach to tackling Corruption

4.9 DFID is stepping up the fight against corruption and fraud in developing countries. A major milestone was the successful prosecution of James Ibori, the Governor of Delta State in Nigeria, in February 2012. This was the result of DFID funding of a specialised unit in the Metropolitan Police – which sends a strong message that the British Government will not tolerate corruption and will do everything we can to root it out.

4.10 A review of DFID’s approach to anti-corruption was published by the Independent Commission on Aid Impact (ICAI) in December 2011. The study found no evidence of fraud but felt that, given DFID would work increasingly in fragile states, more should be done to ensure strong safeguards are in place in the future. The Government accepted its recommendations in their entirety. Building on DFID’s on-going work, this is leading to a significant increase in DFID’s efforts on anti-corruption, focusing not only on protecting taxpayers’ money, but also increasing DFID’s efforts in tackling corruption in the countries in which we work. DFID has already appointed an Anti-Corruption Champion at a senior level to spearhead the work within the Department. DFID will:

- Produce an anti-corruption strategy for each one of its 28 DFID priority countries. The strategy will look at the risks of fraud and corruption in detail at a country level; consider which programmes might be effective to tackle corruption; and how to better safeguard taxpayers’ money. DFID will produce 28 anti-corruption country strategies by January 2013.
- Put all new programme business cases through a strengthened screening for their risk to corruption and fraud, ensuring that mitigating measures and monitoring are robustly followed up.
- Carry out more detailed checks on the systems of implementing partners before we approve new DFID programmes.
- Look for more opportunities to publish information about the programmes that DFID funds, so that those who are ultimately intended to benefit know what they can expect.
- Introduce beneficiary monitoring programmes so that the communities that are intended to benefit have a say in how well the programme is working for them.
- Make better use of information and data to assess corruption and fraud risks.
- Carry out new research in order to learn more from what works and what does not.
- Explore whether we can use technology (mobile phones, the internet etc.) to enable poor people to report fraud more easily.
- Upskill DFID staff in the ways to check for fraud and corruption and in what has been shown to make a difference to tackling corruption in poor countries.

**Scrutiny, Transparency and Accountability**

4.11 Transparency is critical to improving the effectiveness and value for money of aid. Making information about aid spending easier to access, understand and use means that UK taxpayers and citizens in poor countries can more easily hold DFID and recipient governments to account for using aid money wisely. It also helps reduce waste and the opportunities for fraud and corruption. DFID welcomes scrutiny of its work and takes seriously recommendations for improving the impact and value for money of its programmes.

**Social Cash Transfer Scheme – Zambia**

One DFID project in Zambia provides small cash payments to poor families as a social safety net, particularly targeting families with young children. Each family receives around £7 per month – enough for a 50kg bag of the local staple, maize. The scheme helps provide food security in an area where extreme poverty and malnutrition among children are very high.

The programme has been carefully designed to minimise corruption risk and ensure that the funds reach the intended beneficiaries. There are open and transparent criteria and processes for selecting beneficiaries. Payments are made via local government officials or business people, with recipients signing or leaving a thumbprint to acknowledge receipt. The scheme is highly transparent and subject to monitoring both by the responsible government agencies and by local communities. A forthcoming DFID-commissioned evaluation of the programme has found that 99% of intended beneficiaries reported receiving the correct funds at the right time.

4.12 The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) was established by the Secretary of State for International Development in May 2011. ICAI evaluates and scrutinises aid spend across all of the UK government departments that provide Official Development Assistance to help improve the lives of the poor and ensure value for money and maximum impact. The Commission is independent of the Government, reporting to Parliament through the International Development Select Committee (IDC). ICAI published seven reports up to March 2012. Detail of ICAI’s Commissioners, workplans and reports can be found at http://icai.independent.gov.uk/. DFID publishes action plans in response to ICAI recommendations and is accountable to the IDC for timely completion of those actions. DFID’s action plans can be found on both the DFID and the ICAI website.

4.13 DFID has successfully implemented the UK Aid Transparency Guarantee (ATG) in June 2010. In 2011, DFID published financial information and project documents for all new DFID projects over £500. This includes the full business case for each new project, as well as annual and final project reviews. This means that for each new project we are now publishing why we have chosen a particular project; how it will be implemented; how much it will cost; what results we expect; and during implementation, what has actually been achieved. Project data is available at http://projects.dfid.gov.uk/. DFID also published all financial transactions over £500, and contract and tender documents for contracts over £10,000. 4.14 DFID has put in place pilot programmes to test innovative ways to provide better access to aid information for the people who should benefit from our programmes and to provide opportunities for them to provide feedback to us on how money is being used and what results are being achieved. These pilots will enable us to roll out the most effective approaches across the organisation in the future.

**UK Leadership on International Aid Transparency**

DFID led the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) which is a multi-stakeholder initiative involving donors, partner countries, civil society organisations and other providers of development cooperation. IATI has developed and agreed a common, open, international standard for publishing detailed information on aid flows. The standard is designed to make data easier for users to understand, compare and use.

During 2011/12, IATI membership expanded to 30 major donors. These organisations are collectively responsible for around 75% of global Official Development Assistance. DFID was the first bilateral donor to publish its aid information to the international standard agreed through the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI). This allows users to convert our information for use in their own databases, spreadsheets or in other formats, to assess performance. DFID’s data is available to download via [http://www.iatiregistry.org/](http://www.iatiregistry.org/)

4.15 The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s most recently published Annual Report 2010/11 shows that the Ombudsman received one complaint relating to DFID during that year. The Ombudsman stated that no further information was sought directly from DFID in this case nor was it accepted for investigation.

4.16 Budget support is a form of financial aid in which funds are provided direct to governments in support of their poverty reduction strategies. Budget support funds are spent using the recipient’s public financial management, procurement and audit systems. As shown in Table M, in 2011/12 DFID provided budget support in 13 countries, totalling £593.5mn and representing approximately 15% of the total DFID bilateral programme.

### Table M: Budget support allocations and share of country programme budgets

| Country | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2011-12 | 2011-12 | |-------------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | | General budget support £ million | Sector budget support £ million | Total budget support £ million | General budget support £ million | Sector budget support £ million | Total budget support £ million | Total budget support as % share of total country programme budget | | AFRICA | | | | | | | | | Ethiopia | 0.0 | 94.7 | 94.7 | 39% | 0.0 | 132.8 | 132.8 41% | | Ghana | 36.0 | 25.0 | 61.0 | 71% | 25.0 | 23.0 | 48.0 60% | | Malawi | 19.0 | 39.6 | 58.6 | 84% | 0.0 | 41.0 | 41.0 61% | | Mozambique | 48.2 | 28.6 | 76.8 | 89% | 48.0 | 21.4 | 69.4 79% | | Rwanda | 35.8 | 10.5 | 46.3 | 62% | 37.0 | 21.3 | 58.3 70% | | Sierra Leone| 8.0 | 0.0 | 8.0 | 16% | 12.5 | 0.0 | 12.5 22% | | Tanzania | 103.5 | 0.0 | 103.5 | 70% | 50.0 | 30.0 | 80.0 57% | | Uganda | 27.2 | 0.0 | 27.2 | 28% | 20.0 | 5.0 | 25.0 33% | | Zambia | 32.8 | 0.0 | 32.8 | 61% | 12.5 | 0.0 | 12.5 24% | | ASIA | | | | | | | | | India | 0.0 | 46.0 | 46.0 | 16% | 0.0 | 49.0 | 49.0 18% | | Nepal | 0.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 12% | 0.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 11% | | Pakistan | 30.0 | 32.5 | 62.5 | 30% | 0.0 | 38.0 | 38.0 8% | | Vietnam | 20.0 | 0.0 | 20.0 | 40% | 20.0 | 0.0 | 20.0 64% | | REST OF WORLD| | | | | | | | | Moldova | 0.0 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 47% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 0% | | | 360.5 | 286.4 | 646.9 | 225 | 368.5 | 593.5 | |

4.17 DFID reports all cases where aid is reduced, suspended or delayed because of concerns about partner governments’ commitments in four areas, known as Partnership Principles: (1) poverty reduction; (2) respecting human rights; (3) improving public financial management, promoting good governance and transparency and fighting corruption; and (4) strengthening domestic accountability. Breaches of conditions for 2011-12 are reported in Table N.

______________________________________________________________________

29 Error in reporting of Malawi Sector Budget Support 2010/11 figures in 2011 Annual Report rectified. 30 Vietnam sector budget support reclassified as non-budget support financial aid in 2011. Table N: Changes to programmes as a result of breach of conditions during 2011/12

| Country | Programme | Issue | Consequence | |-------------|------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Malawi | General Budget Support. | A new General Budget Support programme was not agreed due to failure to adhere to partnership principles. | No new GBS programme agreed (compared to the previous five years of annual GBS support). | | Sierra Leone| Provision of essential medicines and medical supplies to reduce maternal and child morbidity and mortality. | Programme suspended for five months due to the loss of some medicines during distribution. | New distribution system designed and tested. Services resumed. All losses recovered. | | Afghanistan | Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF). | Funding to the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund suspended during 2011/12 in the absence of an on-going IMF programme since September 2010. | The IMF Board subsequently agreed a new Extended Credit Facility programme in November 2011, and the UK then re-commenced payments to the ARTF. |

**Working with the Private Sector**

4.18 Recognising the pivotal role of private enterprise in generating jobs, income and services that benefit poor people – we have sharply raised the attention DFID gives to fostering successful private investment and increasing the availability, quality and affordability of basic services. We work with business and governments to remove barriers to investment across DFID’s focus countries.

4.19 A wide range of new private sector activities have taken place in 2011:

- 10 million people have gained access to financial services through our mobile banking programme;
- infrastructure projects backed by the Private Infrastructure Development Group which reached financial close in 2011 attracted private investment commitments of US$6.9 billion;
- projects which became operational were delivering new or better services to 6.3 million people;
- we have developed programmes to secure land rights for 6 million people in Rwanda, Mozambique and India.

4.20 DFID led work with pharmaceutical manufacturers through the Reproductive Health Supplies Coalition to increase access and reduce the price of contraceptives. The results of one of these efforts has generated global cost savings of at least $4.5m per year which over four years will enable an additional 1 million women to have access to contraceptive implants by 2015. The Government’s Development Finance Institution

CDC Group plc is a Development Finance Institution 100% owned by the UK government. Informed by a public consultation led by DFID, in May 2011 CDC announced a new High-level Business Plan that has changed the way it works. CDC is now driven by the objective of achieving development impact in the poorest countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, where 70% of the world’s poor live – and will deploy a wider range of instruments, including debt, direct investment and technical assistance as well as private equity, to build businesses; creating jobs and making a lasting difference to people’s lives. To date CDC has invested £1.9bn in 1,126 companies in over 70 countries. More information can be found at www.cdcgroup.com. CHAPTER 5:

Accounts: Department for International Development

These accounts have been prepared in accordance with directions given by HM Treasury in pursuance of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000.

1. Management Commentary

1.1 Key relationships with stakeholders

During the year 2011-12, DFID has worked closely with the following organisations to lead Britain’s fight against global poverty, delivering UK aid around the world:

- Foreign governments and international organisations, in order to deliver our aid programme effectively. Chapter 1.26 shows results achieved through the bilateral programme. Chapter 1.30 provides results through the multilateral programme, including partners DFID has worked with in delivering these goals. Chapter 2 Results in DFID priority countries sets out our progress towards millennium development goals in priority countries. Chapter 3 Delivering through Multilateral Organisations focuses on DFID’s engagement with the multilateral system and delivery of results through these partners.

- Other UK government departments to support and deliver the government’s aims for preventing and managing international conflict, climate change, as well as international development.

1.2 Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs)

DFID has two NDPBs. These are the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission (CSC) and the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI), both of which are included within DFID’s accounts. The Consolidated Statement of Net Expenditure includes two columns – DFID and Departmental Group. It is a Clear Line of Sight requirement, from 2011-12, that a consolidation be carried out to reflect the income and expenditure of the Departmental Group – comprising the Core Department (“DFID”) and the other members of the Group representing all entities within the departmental accounting boundary, including NDPBs. The DFID column includes payments to our NDPBs as grant in aid funding. There is a distinction between CSC and ICAI in how their transactions are later reported, in this regard. Due to ICAI’s status as an Advisory NDPB no physical payment of grant in aid funding is required. Instead DFID’s expenditure includes all payments made on behalf of ICAI. CSC as an Executive NDPB requires a physical transfer of funding and accordingly a consolidation is required to include the expenditure of this body within the Departmental Group. As such the Departmental Group column eliminates the grant in aid funding to CSC and instead includes the income and expenditure of CSC classified appropriately as administration and programme costs according to reporting prepared by CSC. Full details are included in note 28 to the accounts on page 186.

1.3 2011-12 Efficiencies and Savings

DFID has continued to work smarter to become more efficient and make savings. 2011-12 is the first year of the current spending review (SR10). The Department’s core settlement is set to deliver the UK ODA/GNI target in each year. More information on the 2011 ODA/GNI target can be found within Chapter 1.50 on page 37.

The 2010 Spending Review Settlement recognised the growing importance and urgency of tackling climate change and its impact on growth and poverty reduction. To address this, the Settlement provided significant new resources to enable the UK to help developing countries both adapt to the impacts of climate change, and move to a low-carbon growth path.

As a result of the performance of the UK economy, DFID’s budget, along with other government departments, was revised within the Autumn Statement. As a result programme allocations will be reviewed and revisited appropriately.

DFID’s results framework is used to monitor and manage delivery of results. The framework allows flexible decision-making and improves the allocation of resources to maximise impact and value for money. Further details of the results framework is included at Chapter 4.1 on page 85, with results reported in Chapter 2 on page 43.

DFID, along with other government departments, is required to reduce its administrative spend by the end of the current spending review period to help contribute to UK recovery of the economy and reduce the economic deficit. For 2011-12 administrative costs were £14.9 million below estimate. Maintaining costs at this level will ensure good progress to delivering the savings required in the latter two years of the spending review.

1.4 Financial Review

Resource budgets

DFID has two separate budgets controlled through Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL). These are net resource (current) spending and net capital expenditure. There is a further separate budget allocation for Annually Managed Public Expenditure (AME).

The total DEL budget for 2011-12 was £7,867 billion (2010-11 £7,545 billion). The total DEL outturn was £7,830 billion (2010-11 £7,489 billion). This is included in detail within note 3 to the accounts on pages 147 and 148.

The total AME budget for 2011-12 was £209 million (2010-11 £264 million). The actual outturn was only £44 million (2010-11 £249 million). AME is used to reflect programmes which are volatile in a way which cannot be controlled by the Department. The primary component of DFID’s AME budget is commitments to International Finance Facility for Immunisation Company (IFFIm). In the course of the year Standard and Poor (S&P) downgraded their rating of IFFIm from AAA to AA+. The downgrade was announced after the Supplementary Estimate stage. IFFIm’s operations are financed by a combination of donor contributions, which are then invested, and the issue of bonds to generate sufficient cashflow to finance operations. The AME budget requirement reflect DFID’s share of the liability imposed by those bonds. As a result of the downgrading, bond issuances were significantly lower than anticipated, culminating in the cancelling of the planned bond issue in March 2012. The net increase in IFFIm was £15.8 million compared with forecast increase of £151 million.

The DEL and AME budgets are split into amounts voted and non-voted within the Estimate. A breakdown and comparison of outturn against estimate is included within note 3 to the accounts on pages 147 and 148. Operating Costs

Resource outturn decreased by 2.6% from the prior year, compared to a planned increase of 1.5% allocated within the Supplementary Estimate based on the spending review settlement (SR10). As highlighted above the main reason for the decrease is the reduced spend on IFFIm.

Whilst DFID is operating with an increased delivery of programme budget, it like all other government departments is subject to significant administration savings. Administration costs reduced by 18% from last year’s spend of £149.8 million and were £14.9 million lower than estimate figure of £138.2 million. The primary reason for this is due to carrying vacant posts throughout the year.

Capital Expenditure and Statement of Financial Position movements

During the year the Departmental Group’s net assets have decreased by £312 million, a decrease of 40%. This is comprised of:

- Non-Current Assets

  - Tangible and Intangible assets overall have decreased by £4.5 million to £104.5 million (2010-11 £109.0 million) from last year. The main reason being due to downward valuation of owned properties, as per external valuations. In addition, during the year a review was carried out of all existing assets to ensure that all assets recorded within the register are still current and classified appropriately. Where appropriate, carrying values were updated to reflect any impairments.
  - Financial Assets have increased by £181.7 million to £4,049.9 million (2010-11 £3,867.2 million) from last year. The increase in valuation of International Financial Institutions is due to improved equity performance, which offset downward currency valuation movements.
  - Trade and other receivables have decreased by £31.7 million to £79.7 million (2010-11 £111.4 million) from last year. This reduction is in line with planned debt repayments.

- Current Assets

  - Current assets have decreased by £83 million to £77.9 million (2010-11 £160.9 million). The main reason for this is the reduced level of trade and other receivables, including Prepayments and Accrued Income. Prepayments and Accrued Income have decreased by £78.3 million in 2011-12. This is due to two reasons. The Accrued Income element has reduced by approximately £55 million reflecting the transfer from EIB of outstanding loan receipts. In addition DFID has continued to focus on programme disbursement strategy to ensure that payments are fully justifiable and represent value for money. Where advances are required these are only given on a quarterly basis to minimise the risk of underspent funds. This has resulted in a lower level of prepayments in 2011-12. Current assets also include DFID’s 40% shareholding in Actis LLP, which is reflected as an Available for Sale Current Financial Asset.

- Current Liabilities

  - Current liabilities have increased by £351.7 million to £2,856.7 million (2010-11 £2,505 million), an increase of 14% from last year. This was primarily due to an increase in promissory notes deposited but not yet encashed. Key to this is DFID’s commitment to the replenishment of the International Development Association (IDA 16). IDA is the part of the World Bank that provides assistance to the poorest countries, to which DFID along with other donor countries has pledged contributions. The funding position of IDA 16 is that deposits are required in the first three years from signing, whilst encashments cover a ten year period. This leads to an increase in payables for IDA 16 and other promissory notes where the encashment strategy follows a similar pattern. Included in current liabilities is an overdraft position of £5.9 million for 2011-12, which is £14.8 million less than 2010-11. The overdraft position represents the cash in transit payments for the last two days of payment transactions which did not clear the bank statement in 2011-12. The bank statement has never physically reflected an overdraft and as a result DFID bears no charges in the year under review.

Non-current liabilities

- Non-current liabilities have increased by £23 million compared with the previous year. This is mainly due to the movement in provisions of £23.6 million caused by a change in discount rate advised by HM Treasury.

Monitoring of Cash

As a government department DFID is expected to maintain minimal cash balances and should only drawdown cash as required through accurate forecasting of payments and receipts. During the year under review DFID’s payments stayed within the 5% tolerance limit, set by HM Treasury, with the annual variance 2.46% and as such HM Treasury have not levied any penalty charges.

Net Cash Requirement

The Net Cash Requirement Outturn in the Statement of Parliamentary Supply was 2.9% below Estimate (2010-11 11.7% below Estimate). The main reason for this was that actual non-cash transactions were higher than originally forecast. The most significant of non-cash transactions are deposits of promissory notes.

Comparison of 2011-12 Outturn against Estimate

Note 3 to the accounts on page 147 Analysis of Net resource outturn by section shows over and under spends against Estimate headings. Actual spend is based on final approved allocations of resources, whilst Estimates are based on allocations in place at the time plus forecasts based on provisional pipeline. Overspends in Estimate headings are permitted to be offset by savings elsewhere in the Estimate, according to HM Treasury budgeting regulations. The main area this applies to is where the heading of Global Partnerships is 165% more than set out in the Estimate, which is offset by savings such as the 29% underspend on Direct Delivery of Millennium Development Goals. Additionally, the 11% overspend on the Conflict Pool heading is offset by saving within Total Operating Costs heading. To manage differences such as this, virements have been submitted to HM Treasury taking underspends from other themed headings to offset these overspends.

Excess Vote

Note 3 to the accounts on page 148 Analysis of Net Capital Outturn by Section shows an overspend by the Department of £1.6 million against its Capital AME limit of £1.6 million. In July 2011 the Secretary of State (SoS) for DFID advised Chief Secretary to Treasury (CST) that he wished to pursue the disposal of DFID’s 40% shareholding in Actis LLP to the existing management team at Actis LLP who already own the remaining 60% shareholding in the business and had been identified as the preferred purchaser. This request was approved by CST. Negotiations on the value of such a transaction continued and by December 2011 both parties were satisfied with the offer and value of the transaction.

When submitting its Supplementary Estimate the transaction was expected to be complete by the end of February 2012 and as a result income from the expected disposal was included within the Estimate. Although detailed negotiations took place and all commercial matters were agreed prior to the Department’s year-end, a limited number of minor points were not concluded until early April, meaning that the sale agreements were not signed until after Parliament returned from its Easter recess on 30 April 2012. As a result the Department was unable to generate the income included within the Supplementary Estimate and has exceeded its voted Capital AME limit. The Department has carried out an investigation into the factors contributing to the breach, both in terms of the delayed completion of the transaction and of the Estimate process, in relation to identifying changes in Treasury guidance and also monitoring of control limits particularly in relation to negative voted limits. The findings of the review will be used to inform the strengthening of processes and controls in both areas.

1.5 Remote Contingent Liabilities

In accordance with International Accounting Standard 37 Provisions, Contingent liabilities and Contingent Assets, note 24 to the accounts on page 183 shows contingent liabilities where the likelihood of a transfer of economic benefit is remote. During 2011-12, there was an increase in contingent liabilities, in respect of callable capital in investments in International Financial Institutions (IFI’s). During the year under review, DFID subscribed to additional capital subscriptions offered by various IFI’s in order to maintain its voting power in these institutions and support their planned activities.

1.6 Future Development

DFID continues its focus on improvements to systems and processes to add efficiency of administration as well as focusing on results to improve effectiveness of aid. DFID will continue to set its budget and strategy to achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and meeting the ODA/GNI targets set out in the spending review settlement letter.

DFID’s core tables set out provisional allocations of spend across its main objectives for the remainder of the SR10 period. The Core Tables are included within Chapter 6 Analysis of Departmental Expenditure.

2. Corporate Governance and Management of Risk

2.1 Corporate Governance

DFID’s Governance Statement sets out the governance framework of the organisation, including information about the board’s committee structure, its attendance records and the coverage of its work. The statement includes the required assessment of compliance with the Corporate Governance Code, with explanations of any departures.

2.2 Risk

DFID’s Risk and Control Framework is set out in detail within the Governance Statement.

DFID recognises three levels of risk: strategic risk; operational risk and project risk.

DFID has systems in place at all levels across the organisation, which monitor and measure risks. The Management Board reviews how these risks should be treated and seeks to take mitigating actions to reduce these risks.

DFID takes a robust approach to corruption that maximises the impact of aid on poor people, whilst protecting our development assistance, and responding to the risk that perceptions of corruption amongst the general public could undermine international and domestic commitment to development. DFID has three top level anti-corruption goals:

- Maximise the impact on poverty reduction while protecting UK Development Assistance
- Build effective states that promote development by addressing corruption and improving governance at a national level Promote international cooperation to tackle bribery and money laundering and address the international causes of corruption

In addition to this risk and the other risks set out within the Governance Statement, DFID’s approach to managing transactional risks such as currency risk, liquidity risk, interest rate risk and market risk are outlined in note 14 of the accounts on pages 161 to 168, Financial Instruments.

3. Senior Management

3.1 Ministers

Ministers of DFID as at 31 March 2012 and during the year under review are as follows:

Secretary of State for International Development: Rt Hon Andrew Mitchell MP

Minister of State for International Development: Alan Duncan MP

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development: Stephen O’Brien MP

Baroness Stowell is the appointed Whip on DFID business in the House of Lords and Baroness Northover is the appointed spokesperson in the House of Lords.

3.2 Members of DFID Board

The composition of the Board at the reporting date is as follows:

Mark Lowcock Permanent Secretary

Richard Calvert Director General, Finance and Corporate Performance

Joy Hutcheon Director General, Country Programmes

Mark Bowman Director General, Humanitarian, Security and Conflict

Michael Anderson Director General, Policy and Global Programmes

Vivienne Cox Lead Non-Executive Director

Doreen Langston Non-Executive Director

Sharon White served as Director General Middle East and Northern Africa from 1 April 2011 to 30 September 2011. 4. Remuneration Report

Remuneration Policy

The remuneration of senior civil servants is set by the Prime Minister following independent advice from the Review Body on Senior Salaries.

The Review Body also advises the Prime Minister from time to time on the pay and pensions of Members of Parliament and their allowances; on Peers’ allowances; and on the pay, pensions and allowances of Ministers and others whose pay is determined by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975.

In reaching its recommendations, the Review Body has regard to the following considerations:

- the need to recruit, retain and motivate suitably able and qualified people to exercise their different responsibilities;
- regional/local variations in labour markets and their effects on the recruitment and retention of staff;
- Government policies for improving the public services including the requirement on departments to meet the output targets for the delivery of departmental services;
- the funds available to departments as set out in the Government’s departmental expenditure limits; and
- the Government’s inflation target.

The Review Body takes account of the evidence it receives about wider economic considerations and the affordability of its recommendations.

Further information about the work of the Review Body can be found at www.ome.uk.com.

In line with the coalition Government’s transparency commitments, DFID is now publishing salary details of its senior civil servants in the format agreed with the Cabinet Office. This is published on DFID’s external website www.dfid.gov.uk.

Service Contracts

The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 requires Civil Service appointments to be made on merit on the basis of fair and open competition. The Recruitment Principles published by the Civil Service Commission specify the circumstances when appointments may be made otherwise.

Unless otherwise stated below, the officials covered by this report hold appointments which are open-ended. Early termination, other than for misconduct, would result in the individual receiving compensation as set out in the Civil Service Compensation Scheme.

Further information about the work of the Civil Service Commission can be found at www.civilservicecommission.org.uk

Salary and pension entitlements (This information has been audited)

The following sections provide details of the remuneration and pension interests of the Ministers and most senior management (i.e. Management Board members) of the department.

## Remuneration (salary and payments in kind)

| Ministers | 2011-12 | 2010-11 | |------------------------------------------------|---------|---------| | | Salary £ | Benefits in kind (to nearest £100) | Salary £ | Benefits in kind (to nearest £100) | | Andrew Mitchell | 68,827 | – | 61,056¹ | – | | Secretary of State (from 12 May 2010) | | | | | | Alan Duncan | 33,002 | – | 29,187² | – | | Minister of State (from 13 May 2010) | | | | | | Stephen O’Brien | 23,697 | – | 20,894³ | – | | Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (from 14 May 2010) | | | | | | Douglas Alexander | – | – | 8,847⁴ | – | | Secretary of State (to 11 May 2010) | | | | | | Gareth Thomas | – | – | 4,589⁵ | – | | Minister of State (to 11 May 2010) | | | | | | Mike Foster | – | – | 3,483⁶ | – | | Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (to 11 May 2010) | | | | |

¹ £68,827 (full year equivalent) and £79,754 (entitled salary) ² £33,002 (full year equivalent) and £41,370 (entitled salary) ³ £23,697 (full year equivalent) and £31,401 (entitled salary) ⁴ £78,356 (full year equivalent) and £79,754 (entitled salary) ⁵ £40,646 (full year equivalent) and £41,370 (entitled salary) ⁶ £30,401 (full year equivalent) and £31,401 (entitled salary)

The above figures show payments made by the Department and recorded in these accounts. The above figures show payments made by the Department and recorded in these accounts.

| Management Board Members | 2011-12 | 2010-11 | |--------------------------|---------|---------| | | Salary £’000 | Bonus Payments £’000 | Benefits in kind (to nearest £100) | Salary £’000 | Bonus Payments £’000 | Benefits in kind (to nearest £100) | | Mark Lowcock | 155-160(^1) | 10-15 | – | 135-140 | 10-15 | – | | Permanent Secretary | | | | | | | | Richard Calvert | 120-125 | – | – | 120-125 | 5-10 | – | | Director General | | | | | | | | Michael Anderson | 120-125 | – | – | 120-125 | 5-10 | – | | Director General | | | | | | | | Joy Hutcheon | 110-115 (115-120 full year equivalent)(^2) | 10-15 | – | – | – | – | | Director General | | | | | | | | Mark Bowman | 30-35 (115-120 full year equivalent)(^3) | – | – | – | – | – | | Director General (From 12 December 2011) | | | | | | | | Sharon White | 55-60 (125-130 full year equivalent)(^4) | – | – | – | – | – | | Director General (to 30 September 2011) | | | | | | | | Nemat (Minouche) Shafik | – | – | – | 205-210 | – | 11,200 | | Permanent Secretary (to 31 March 2011) | | | | | | | | Martin Dinham | – | – | – | 35-40 (130-135 full year equivalent) | 10-15 | – | | Director General (to 8 July 2010) | | | | | | |

Band of Highest Paid Director’s Total: £155-160k Remuneration Median Total: £47,284 Remuneration Ratio: 3.3

Band of Highest Paid Director’s Total: £205-210k Remuneration Median Total: £47,284 Remuneration Ratio: 4.4

______________________________________________________________________

1 On temporary promotion from 1 April 2011 to 8 June 2011 and substantively promoted on 9 June 2011. (2010-11 salary was based on previous role before promotion). 2 On temporary promotion from 28 March 2011 to 23 October 2011 and substantively promoted on 24 October 2011. (Comparative salary not included as this was prior to being appointed to the management board). 3 Transferred from HMT on 12 December 2011, paid by HMT until 31 December 2011. 4 On loan from Ministry of Justice from 1 April 2011 to 30 September 2011. Salary

‘Salary’ includes gross salary; overtime; reserved rights to London weighting or London allowances; recruitment and retention allowances; private office allowances and any other allowance to the extent that it is subject to UK taxation.

During 2011-12 the following fees and taxable expenses were paid to non-executive members of the Board:

- Doreen Langston – £25,000 (This includes arrears for the period 1 January 11 to 31 March 11 of £5,000)
- Vivienne Cox – £25,860 (This includes arrears for the period 6 December 10 to 31 March 11 of £5,963)

This report is based on accrued payments made by the Department and thus recorded in these accounts. In respect of Ministers in the House of Commons, departments bear only the cost of the additional Ministerial remuneration; the salary for their services as an MP (£65,738 from 1 April 2010) and various allowances to which they are entitled are borne centrally. However, the arrangement for Ministers in the House of Lords is different in that they do not receive a salary but rather an additional remuneration, which cannot be quantified separately from their Ministerial salaries. This total remuneration, as well as any allowances to which they are entitled to claim for, is paid by the Department and is therefore shown in full in the figures above.

Reporting bodies are required to disclose the relationship between the remuneration of the highest-paid member of the management board in their organisation and the median remuneration of the organisation’s workforce.

The banded remuneration of the highest-paid member of the management board in DFID in the financial year 2011-12 was £155,000-£160,000 (2010-11 £205,000-£210,000). This was 3.3 times (2010-11 4.4) the median remuneration of the workforce, which was £47,284 in both years.

In 2011-12 and 2010-11 no employees received remuneration in excess of the highest-paid member of the management board.

Total remuneration includes salary, non-consolidated performance related pay, benefits in kind as well as severance payments. It does not include employer pension contributions and the cash equivalent transfer of pensions.

Benefits in kind

The monetary value of benefits in kind covers any benefits provided by the Department and treated by HM Revenue and Customs as a taxable emolument. No benefits in kind were provided in 2011-12.

Bonuses

Bonuses are based on performance levels attained and are made as part of the appraisal process. The bonuses reported in 2011-12 relate to performance in 2010-11 and the comparative bonuses reported for 2010-11 relate to the performance in 2009-10, as such bonus payments can relate to periods prior to serving on the Management Board. Pension Benefits

Ministerial pensions

| Minister | Accrued pension at age 65 as at 31/3/12 | Real increase in pension at age 65 | Cash Equivalent transfer Value (CETV) at 31/3/12 | CETV at 31/3/11 | Real increase in CETV | |-----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|----------------|----------------------| | Andrew Mitchell Secretary of State | 5-10 | 0-2.5 | 88 | 50 | 29 | | Alan Duncan Minister of State | 0-5 | 0-2.5 | 27 | 13 | 8 | | Stephen O’Brien Parliamentary Under Secretary of State | 0-5 | 0-2.5 | 13 | 6 | 2 |

Pension benefits for Ministers are provided by the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund (PCPF). The scheme is made under statute (the regulations are set out in Statutory Instrument SI 1993 No 3253, as amended).

Those Ministers who are Members of Parliament may also accrue an MP’s pension under the PCPF (details of which are not included in this report). The arrangements for Ministers provide benefits on an ‘average salary’ basis, taking account of all service as a Minister. The accrual rate has been 1/40th since 15 July 2002 (or 5 July 2001 for those that chose to backdate the change) but Ministers, in common with all other members of the PCPF, can opt for a 1/50th accrual rate and a lower rate of member contribution. An additional 1/60th accrual rate option (backdated to 1 April 2008) was introduced from 1 January 2010.

Benefits for Ministers are payable at the same time as MPs’ benefits become payable under the PCPF or, for those who are not MPs, on retirement from Ministerial office from age 65. Pensions are re-valued annually in line with Pensions Increase legislation. From 1 April 2009 members pay contributions of 5.9% of their Ministerial salary if they have opted for the 1/60th accrual rate, 7.9% of salary if they have opted for the 1/50th accrual rate or 11.9% of salary if they have opted for the 1/40th accrual rate. There is also an employer contribution of 28.7% of the Ministerial salary paid by the Exchequer representing the balance of cost as advised by the Government Actuary. Increases to member and Exchequer contributions will apply from 1 April 2012.

The accrued pension quoted is the pension the Minister is entitled to receive when they reach 65, or immediately on ceasing to be an active member of the scheme if they are already 65.

The Cash Equivalent Transfer Value (CETV)

This is the actuarially assessed capitalised value of the pension scheme benefits accrued by a member at a particular point in time. The benefits valued are the member’s accrued benefits and any contingent spouse’s pension payable from the scheme. A CETV is a payment made by a pension scheme or arrangement to secure pension benefits in another pension scheme or arrangement when the member leaves a scheme and chooses to transfer the pension benefits they have accrued in their former scheme. The pension figures shown relate to the benefits that the individual has accrued as a consequence of their total Ministerial service, not just their current appointment as a Minister. CETVs are calculated in accordance with The Occupational Pension Schemes (Transfer Values) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 and do not take account of any actual or potential reduction to benefits resulting from Lifetime Allowance Tax which may be due when pension benefits are taken.

The real increase in the value of the CETV

This is the element of the increase in accrued pension funded by the Exchequer. It excludes increases due to inflation and contributions paid by the Minister. It is worked out using common market valuation factors for the start and end of the period.

Civil Service Pensions

| Officials | Accrued pension at pension age as at 31/3/12 & related lump sum | Real increase in pension & related lump sum at pension age | CETV at 31/3/12 | CETV at 31/3/11 | Real increase in CETV | Employer contribution to partnership pension account | |----------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|----------------|----------------|----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------| | Mark Lowcock Permanent Secretary | 50-55 plus lump sum of 150-155 | 5-7.5 plus lump sum of 15-17.5 | 859 | 704 | 94 | – | | Richard Calvert Director General | 40-45 plus lump sum of 130-135 | 0-2.5 (minus) plus lump sum of 0-2.5 | 767 | 718 | 13 | – | | Michael Anderson Director General| 15-20 plus lump sum of 0-5 | 0-2.5 plus lump sum of 0-2.5 | 242 | 207 | 14 | – | | Joy Hutcheon Director General | 30-35 plus lump sum of 95-100 | 2.5-5 plus lump sum of 12.5-15 | 505 | 395 | 68 | – | | Mark Bowman Director General | 20-25 plus lump sum of 60-35 | 0-2.5 plus lump sum of 5-7.5 | 288 | 255 | 29 | – | | Sharon White Director General | 35-40 plus lump sum of 45-50 | 0-2.5 plus lump sum of -0-2.5 (minus) | 486 | 425 | 22 | – |

Pension benefits are provided through the Civil Service pension arrangements. From 30 July 2007, civil servants may be in one of four defined benefit schemes; either a final salary scheme (classic, premium or classic plus); or a whole career scheme (nuvos). These statutory arrangements are unfunded with the cost of benefits met by monies voted by Parliament each year. Pensions payable under classic, premium, classic plus and nuvos are increased annually in line with Pensions Increase legislation. Members joining from October 2002 may opt for either

31 The actuarial factors used to calculate CETVs were changed in 2011-12. The CETVs at 31/3/11 and 31/3/12 have both been calculated using the new factors, for consistency. The CETV at 31/3/11 therefore differs from the corresponding figure in last year’s report which was calculated using the previous factors. the appropriate defined benefit arrangement or a ‘money purchase’ stakeholder pension with an employer contribution (partnership pension account).

Employee contributions are set at the rate of 1.5% of pensionable earnings for classic and 3.5% for premium, classic plus and nuvos. Increases to employee contributions will apply from 1 April 2012. Benefits in classic accrue at the rate of 1/80th of final pensionable earnings for each year of service. In addition, a lump sum equivalent to three years initial pension is payable on retirement. For premium, benefits accrue at the rate of 1/60th of final pensionable earnings for each year of service. Unlike classic, there is no automatic lump sum. Classic plus is essentially a hybrid with benefits for service before 1 October 2002 calculated broadly as per classic and benefits for service from October 2002 worked out as in premium. In nuvos a member builds up a pension based on his pensionable earnings during their period of scheme membership. At the end of the scheme year (31 March) the member’s earned pension account is credited with 2.3% of their pensionable earnings in that scheme year and the accrued pension is uprated in line with Pensions Increase legislation. In all cases members may opt to give up (commute) pension for a lump sum up to the limits set by the Finance Act 2004.

The partnership pension account is a stakeholder pension arrangement. The employer makes a basic contribution of between 3% and 12.5% (depending on the age of the member) into a stakeholder pension product chosen by the employee from a panel of three providers. The employee does not have to contribute, but where they do make contributions, the employer will match these up to a limit of 3% of pensionable salary (in addition to the employer’s basic contribution). Employers also contribute a further 0.8% of pensionable salary to cover the cost of centrally-provided risk benefit cover (death in service and ill health retirement).

The accrued pension quoted is the pension the member is entitled to receive when they reach pension age, or immediately on ceasing to be an active member of the scheme if they are already at or over pension age. Pension age is 60 for members of classic, premium and classic plus and 65 for members of nuvos.

Further details about the Civil Service pension arrangements can be found at the website http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/pensions

Cash Equivalent Transfer Values

A Cash Equivalent Transfer Value (CETV) is the actuarially assessed capitalised value of the pension scheme benefits accrued by a member at a particular point in time. The benefits valued are the member’s accrued benefits and any contingent spouse’s pension payable from the scheme. A CETV is a payment made by a pension scheme or arrangement to secure pension benefits in another pension scheme or arrangement when the member leaves a scheme and chooses to transfer the benefits accrued in their former scheme. The pension figures shown relate to the benefits that the individual has accrued as a consequence of their total membership of the pension scheme, not just their service in a senior capacity to which disclosure applies.

The figures include the value of any pension benefit in another scheme or arrangement which the member has transferred to the Civil Service pension arrangements. They also include any additional pension benefit accrued to the member as a result of their buying additional pension benefits at their own cost. CETVs are worked out in accordance with The Occupational Pension Schemes (Transfer Values) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 and do not take account of any actual or potential reduction to benefits resulting from Lifetime Allowance Tax which may be due when pension benefits are taken. Real increase in CETV

This reflects the increase in CETV that is funded by the employer. It does not include the increase in accrued pension due to inflation, contributions paid by the employee (including the value of any benefits transferred from another pension scheme or arrangement) and uses common market valuation factors for the start and end of the period.

Pension Liabilities

Details of the treatment of pension liabilities can be found in Note 1.10 of the accounts on page 140 and pension entitlement of Ministers and senior officials are detailed in the Remuneration Report above.

5. Public interest and other matters

5.1 Equality and Diversity

DFID is committed to creating an inclusive working environment to maximise the potential of all staff, providing equal opportunities in all aspects of employment and avoiding unlawful discrimination or bullying and harassment at work. DFID is accredited under the Disability Two Ticks Scheme, which guarantees an interview for suitable applicants with disabilities.

DFID’s Equality Framework explains how equality and diversity can make improvements in practices and support organisational vision and priorities. The Framework provides an approach for DFID to carry out equality and diversity, both for service delivery (a generic term used to cover the programme, policy, advisory and developmental roles DFID undertakes) and for employment practices.

In line with the Framework DFID has published information to show how it is implementing equality and diversity at home and overseas at http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Work-with-us/Working-for-DFID/Equality-and-diversity/ and is also simultaneously complying with the requirements of the 2010 Equality Act. In particular we have published our Equality Objectives, our Equality and Diversity reports and our Departmental Staff report.

The current UK legislation does not apply to our work overseas; however, we have a clear commitment to deliver equality and value diversity in all that we do, and it is included in the role of social development in the overseas context.

5.2 Health, Safety and Well being

DFID is committed to ensuring the health, safety and well-being of its employees and workers. As part of this commitment DFID has a policy on maximising attendance. The aim of this policy is to ensure that all staff within DFID are aware of their responsibilities in connection with attendance, to enable the consistent management of attendance issues and to underline DFID’s commitment to the provision of appropriate employee support. The Human Resource department collate data indicating staff absence and communicate this to departments on a monthly basis. The following table summarises sickness absence for the calendar year ended 31 December 2011.

| | 2011-12 | 2010-11 | |--------------------------------------|---------|---------| | Working days lost (short-term absence)| 3,110 | 3,867 | | Working days lost (long-term absence) | 6,032 | 6,014 | | Total working days lost | 9,142 | 9,881 | | Number of staff absent as a result of sickness | 611 | 687 |

5.3 Employee Engagement

DFID proactively promotes employee engagement at all levels across the world.

DFID operate an open and honest environment to encourage staff to feedback their views both formally and informally.

One of the ways staff are given the opportunity formally to contribute and express their views is through an annual staffing survey. The results of which are reviewed by Directors, Heads of Department and line managers and actions taken to address findings, where appropriate.

During the year, staff are kept up to date with strategy development, priorities and financial performance through a variety of channels, such as All Staff meetings, use of intranet and sharing of board minutes summarising key developments within the organisation. Staff are encouraged to observe high level meeting across the organisation such as Audit Committee and Management Board meetings.

In addition DFID has a team dedicated to employee engagement to ensure all staff receive the most important messages that affect them and their work, and that they have a chance to have their say on changes.

Informally staff can provide feedback through channels such as department meetings, blogs and other means of knowledge sharing.

DFID makes extensive use of new media in order to engage with staff, such as bringing together all staff across the organisation through the use of video conferencing. This assists with overcoming the geographical and logistical barriers to effective employee engagement.

5.4 Personal data losses

Incidents, the disclosure of which would in itself create an unacceptable risk of harm, may be excluded in accordance with the exemptions contained in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or may be subject to the limitations of other UK information legislation.

Summary of protected personal data related incidents formally reported to the information commissioner’s office in 2011-12

Owing to the nature of our business and in comparison with many other government departments who provide significant citizen-facing services, DFID does not hold large volumes of personal data. However, DFID does hold a moderate amount of classified information. DFID takes its responsibility for management of all data very seriously.

A governance structure is in place for information security and risk management. DFID reviewed its arrangements for the Senior Information Risk Owner role following an organisational restructure, during the year under review, to ensure the necessary responsibilities continued to be carried out at the required level. DFID remains independently certified as compliant with ISO/IEC 27001:2005, the international standard for information security management systems. DFID has been formally compliant with the standard since 2008 and is committed to maintaining its certification in the future, having agreed a new contract with a new accredited certification body in 2011. DFID remains the only ministerial department to hold this certification.

A senior management group, chaired by the Deputy Senior Information Risk Owner (a Deputy Director), monitors our information security risks on behalf of the Senior Information Risk Owner (a Director General) and the Management Board and oversees a programme of work on compliance with the HMG Security Policy Framework, the Cabinet Office Data Handling Review and ISO/IEC 27001:2005. This group is also responsible for setting and overseeing the training, education and awareness plan to maintain and raise awareness of information security issues across DFID. Directors are responsible for providing assurance on information security in their annual statements of assurance which support this and other elements of the Governance Statement.

No protected personal data related incidents were reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office in 2011-12.

DFID will continue to monitor and assess its information risks in order to identify and address any weaknesses, and ensure continuous improvement of its systems.

**Summary of other protected personal data related incidents 2011-12**

Incidents deemed by the Data Controller not to fall within the criteria for report to the Information Commissioner’s Office but recorded centrally within the Department are set out in the table below. Small, localised incidents are not recorded centrally and are not cited in these figures.

| Category | Nature of incident | Total 2011-12 | Total 2010-11 | |----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------| | I | Loss of inadequately protected electronic equipment, devices or paper documents from secured Government premises | – | – | | II | Loss of inadequately protected electronic equipment, devices or paper documents from outside secured Government premises | – | – | | III | Insecure disposal of inadequately protected electronic equipment, devices or paper documents | – | – | | IV | Unauthorised disclosure | – | – | | V | Other | – | 1 |

**5.5 Payment of Suppliers**

In accordance with the Prompt Payment Initiative, DFID aimed to pay 80% of all undisputed invoices within five days of receipt. The remainder of all undisputed invoices are then aimed to be settled within ten days of receipt.

During the year ended 31 March 2012, 82.45% of invoices were paid within five days of receipt (2010-11 78.56%). The department will continue to review its operating practices and systems with a view to re-engineer processes and add increased efficiency. This includes improvements in prompt payment of invoices. No amounts were paid in relation to late interest.

The level of payables within the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position complies with the less than the five day payment requirement.

5.6 Transparency

Transparency is a major Government initiative where every element of the departments spend is made available to the general public.

DFID has two main transparency initiatives:

- UK Government Transparency Drive, which is the promise to the UK taxpayer to make information about departmental spend, contracts and staffing across all government departments more open and clear. DFID is committed to publishing every financial transaction above £500 for both programme and administrative spend. Although the assumption is of automatic disclosure, a small number of exclusions apply in order not to harm DFID’s work or staff. Exemption criteria includes information that may harm DFID’s relations with other Governments or Institutions, information that may pose a risk to the security or safety to individuals, information that intrudes on the privacy of a person or information that does harm to either DFID or its partners’/suppliers’ commercial interests.

- Aid Transparency Guarantee (including the International Aid Transparency Initiative), which is the government’s commitment to publish more detailed information on projects, making summary information available in local languages and providing opportunities for feedback from people affected by DFID’s programmes.

For DFID, the two transparency initiatives will mean greater visibility of our work to people within the UK and also to people in countries we work in. Details of information published under both initiatives are available on DFID’s website.

5.7 Estates Review

DFID, as a key central Government department, has contributed to the cross Whitehall accommodation review. The purpose of this is to make more effective use of government owned accommodation, including premises currently unoccupied. As a result of this, DFID has been looking at ways in which it can reduce its London office accommodation costs. Consequently, a decision has been taken to vacate Palace Street and move to a government owned freehold building, 22/26 Whitehall. This will reduce accommodation costs not just within DFID but also across government. The timing of this move is still under review although DFID reached agreement in April 2012 to take ownership of 22/26 Whitehall with effect from 1 September 2012. No decision has been reached as yet as to when DFID will vacate Palace Street or what to do with the remaining leasehold interest on these premises.

Moving the London office to Whitehall has considerable advantages for how DFID operates, as it seeks to work more closely with other Departments.

The move will also enable DFID to modernise the working environment and rethink how smartly the department can work in London, particularly with others and share lessons across other offices. This will be particularly relevant for the increasing numbers of teams operating across multiple locations in both the UK and overseas. 5.8 Finance Improvement Plan – “Finance for All”

A Financial Improvement Plan – “Finance for All” was launched during 2011-12 to improve financial management within DFID. This aims to address NAO’s recommendations, set out within its Financial Management Review report undertaken in 2010-11, to improve financial management and add increased efficiency to DFID operations.

The Finance Improvement Plan has driven improvements during 2011-12, such as improved forecasting, better budgeting, implementation of a foreign exchange policy, and the development of a Finance Cadre for all Finance Professionals (students and members of CCAB and CIMA accountancy bodies). Progress has been made throughout the organisation in raising the profile of financial management with communication and engagement of this being more demand led.

Looking forward, priority areas within Finance for All have been identified as consideration of the existing Finance Operating Model and alternative options, improving finance skills and capability at all levels throughout the organisation, systems improvements and enhancing the governance environment. These will be taken forward with a view to identifying and implementing changes to existing processes, guidance and system capabilities to drive efficiency.

5.9 Foreign Exchange Policy Implementation

In order to provide an increased level of budget certainty, a foreign exchange policy was implemented during 2011-12. A purchase of forward contracts to match South African Rand exposure has been made and the US Dollar and Euro strategy is currently being reviewed with a view to implementation in 2012-13. Details of the policy are set out in the accounting policies note 1.15: Financial Instruments on page 142 together with details of the unrealised losses and values covered by the policy during 2011-12, which are set out in note 14.2 of the accounts on page 163.

5.10 Publicity and Advertising

The Cabinet Office marketing and advertising freeze (from June 2010) remained in place during all of 2011-12. As a result DFID incurred no advertising or publicity costs during the year.

5.11 Donations

No political or charitable donations were made during 2011-12.

6. Events after the reporting date

DFID’s Accounts’ are laid before the Houses of Parliament by HM Treasury. The Accounting Officer authorised these financial statements for issue on the same date that the Comptroller and Auditor General signed his certificate.

6.1 Non Adjusting Events after the reporting date

On 30 April 2012 DFID signed a binding sale agreement in relation to disposing of its 40% shareholding in Actis LLP. The Secretary of State announced this transaction in Parliament on 1 May 2012. This shareholding is currently included in note 14.1 on page 161 as an Available for Sale Current Investment. The sale agreement confirmed DFID’s intention to dispose of this shareholding, in exchange for cash payments totalling $13 million and a percentage interest in Actis managements’ carried interest in funds. Under the rules set out within the FReM investments are required to be held at the lower of historic cost or realisable value. Accordingly the value set out in note 14.1 on page 161 of the accounts is the historic cost value. In the 2012-13 accounts the investment will be disposed of at this value and the difference between this value and the amounts received will be surrendered to the Consolidated Fund as non-operating Income.

7. **Auditors**

These accounts are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. There is no relevant audit information of which the auditors are unaware. As Accounting Officer I have taken all the steps appropriate to ensure that I am aware of relevant audit information and to establish that the entity's auditors are aware of the information.

Mark Lowcock\
Accounting Officer for the Department for International Development\
18 June 2012 Strategy for Sustainability

The Department for International Development (DFID) is responsible for promoting development and reducing poverty through managing Britain’s aid to developing countries. DFID has a key role to play in ensuring that the work undertaken in developing countries considers economic, social and environmental aspects according to the priorities and circumstances in each country.

As well as being hit first, the poorest are also hit hardest by climate change because they are less equipped to cope with the effects. Climate change is already affecting the world’s poorest countries – from increased frequency and severity of flooding in Bangladesh to changing rainfall patterns across Africa, bringing drought and crop failure to countries like Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia. That’s why international support is needed to help communities adapt to the impacts of climate change and to help countries develop infrastructure that supports growth and withstands future climate instability. DFID is committed to ensuring that aid addresses both the causes and likely effects of Climate Change so that current and future progress in tackling poverty continues. We are ensuring that all our internal operations are Climate Smart to both set an example and to help mitigate as far as possible any environmental impacts from our operations in our work to combat Climate Change.

The Greening Government Commitments (GGC) were published in February 2011, which can be found at web link http://sd.defra.gov.uk/gov/green-government/commitments/. These set out an action plan for driving sustainable operations and procurement across government. DFID firmly believes that sustainability should be the underlying goal of everything we do and from 2011-12 onwards we will report our sustainable performance and associated costs within our Annual Accounts.

We also consider poverty reduction a fundamental prerequisite of sustainable development.

“If we are serious about development we need to be serious about climate change” Mark Lowcock, Permanent Secretary DFID, 2011

DFID has produced a Carbon Management Plan (endorsed by the Carbon Trust) which sets out a plan of action to reduce our carbon emissions until 2015 and to achieve the GGC targets. The plan takes into account input from the Carbon Trust under their Central Government Carbon Management Service, a ten month programme of advice and support. The Carbon Management plan also allows us to take into account decisions on the future accommodation of DFID in London which will have an impact on our carbon footprint. Many of the savings identified in the plan are as a result of projects we have put in place since 2009-10 such as the improved management of planned operation times, server and printer rationalisation projects, estate rationalisation and a green roof at our site in East Kilbride, Scotland.

DFID has an established Sustainable Operations Board with responsibility for overseeing the operational sustainability programme. The board is chaired by our Director General, Finance and Corporate Performance, who is also our Sustainable Operations Champion, and comprises members of the key operational areas which influence our sustainability impacts, notably Facilities Management, Procurement, Information Systems Department, Communications and also advisory input from our Climate and Environment Group. The purpose of the DFID Sustainable Operations Board (SOB), which meets 3-4 times a year, is to provide direction and oversight on the development of strategy, targets and activities to meet HMG and DFID sustainable operations objectives.

Whilst our departmental group includes the two non-departmental public bodies, the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission and the Independent Commission for Aid Effectiveness, we have confirmation of exemptions for these sites from the Greening Government Unit as they occupy less than 1,000m² of floor area and have fewer than 250 full time staff. As a UK government department, DFID has reported its performance against the targets as set out under the Sustainable Operations on the Government Estate framework for the UK estate for over 10 years.

**Summary of Performance**

The Secretary of State is committed to ensuring DFID becomes Climate Smart and this is set out in the DFID Business Plan. Being Climate Smart not only means ensuring that all of DFID’s policies and programmes are climate-proofed; greening our operations is the first pillar of DFID’s Climate Smart programme. Furthermore, we have retained a commitment to be carbon neutral overseas by 2012.

During the last three years, DFID has implemented a number of measures to meet the Sustainable Operations on the Government Estate targets, and subsequently the GGCs.

We have made good progress during 2011-12 against the GGC baseline of 2009-10 and have achieved:

- over 30% reduction in our carbon emissions from Energy.
- 11% reduction in business related air miles flown
- 20% reduction in paper usage
- 12% reduction in our water usage
- 25% reduction in waste generated

DFID has also achieved re-accreditation to the Carbon Trust Standard which is an independent assurance and standard which validates that we have a robust environmental management system in place. We were one of twenty two organisations who achieved top position with 100% for the new Government Carbon Reduction Commitment (out of a total of over 2,000 participating bodies).

The highest profile target during 2010-11 was that of a 10% reduction in emissions from the UK estate. Due to a range of measures, including a number of changes to the building management systems in the latter part of the year, we achieved a 15.4% reduction compared with a pan-Government average of 13.8%, and this was achieved without any reduction in the size of the estate. DFID has a strong record in recent years for improving our environmental performance, through a combination of investment in new technologies and equipment to behavioral changes. Additional measures are either in the process of evaluation or are being implemented which mean that we can be confident of achieving our long term reduction targets.

**Sustainability Accounting and Reporting**

The following section presents more detailed environmental data on our year on year reductions against the GGC baseline and a breakdown of our financial costs.

Since 2009-10, as a result of numerous initiatives DFID carbon emissions from energy have reduced by over 30% and we have therefore achieved the GGC target significantly ahead of the 2014-15 target. DFID Sustainability Report

| Greenhouse Gas Emissions | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | |--------------------------|---------|---------|---------| | Total Gross Emissions | 3,860 | 3,409 | 2,699 | | Gross Emissions (Scope 1 (direct)) | 654 | 454 | 264 | | Gross Emissions Scope 2 & 3 (indirect) | 3,206 | 2,955 | 2,435 | | Electricity: Non renewable | 5,930 | 5,455 | 4,121 | | Electricity: Renewable | – | – | – | | Gas | 3,564 | 2,464 | 1,485 | | LPG | – | – | – | | Other | – | – | – | | Expenditure on Energy | 479 | 550 | 513\* | | CRC licence Expenditure | – | – | – | | Expenditure on accredited offsets | 303 | 121 | 180\* | | Expenditure on official business travel | 4,437 | 3,938 | 4050\* |

\*estimates as dependent upon price of carbon credits.

Travel related emissions

Since the 2009-10 baseline DFID has achieved the following emissions reduction from domestic air miles (business related travel) as follows.

| | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | |----------------------|---------|---------|---------| | UK Domestic Air Miles| 1.5m | 1.35m | 1.34m | | Carbon | 463 | 410 | 356 |

These reductions have primarily been achieved through an increase in rail travel between our two headquarter sites in London and East Kilbride, and we have also implemented a mandatory policy whereby staff who do need to travel by air within the UK only fly economy class. DEFRA emissions factors for converting air miles to carbon are significantly higher for business class as opposed to economy class. The indicative emissions factors by passenger seating class have been produced by DEFRA to allow passengers to build an understanding of how emissions per passenger kilometre are affected by load factors and seat configurations. This is based on the methodology that a business class flight omits more emissions per head as there are less people travelling on that class of flight.

Although the GGC does not include international travel, DFID has agreed internal targets to reduce our international air miles in line with the requirements of the GGC targets.

Reduce Waste

The GGC target is to reduce the amount of waste we generate by 25% from the 2009-10 baseline and DFID has now already achieved this target. Although there is not a GGC target for recycling rates, DFID has set an internal target of recycling at least 75% of our waste. During 2011-12 DFID has recycled at least 70%\* of waste generated. We have improved our recycling rates through anaerobic digestion of all our food waste at both UK buildings. Anaerobic digestion is the natural breakdown of organic materials into methane and carbon dioxide gas and fertiliser.

Reducing Water Consumption

New targets for water consumption are based on usage per FTE, against which DFID is currently demonstrating ‘good practice’. DFID has reduced water usage mainly due to the installation of dual-flush cisterns and making all our urinals waterless. We are currently investigating options for further reductions in water usage including rain water harvesting at our site in Scotland. DFID does not own any water reserves in lakes, reservoirs or boreholes so all our water usage is classified as Scope 2 only. Sustainable Procurement

DFID has compiled a sustainable procurement strategy paper which aligns with the latest GGCs requirements:

- Supplier engagement – targeting corporate supplier engagement in place to promote continual sustainability improvement including incentives for suppliers where possible and ensuring compliance with Government sourcing policies.
- Policy, strategy and communications – the revised sustainable strategy includes sourcing strategies for key corporate requirements; supplier engagement; training; measurable objectives; risks and a review schedule.

Future projects

Whilst we have now already implemented the most beneficial and cost-effective building improvements, we are continuing to investigate and implement a number of energy efficiency measures in both Abercrombie House, East Kilbride and new accommodation in London which should result in further improvements in performance. Those which should deliver improvements during 2012-13 include:

- Biomass boiler in Abercrombie House later this year;
- IT improvements including printer rationalisation and virtual desktops;
- Possible changes to heating controls;
- Upgrading of lighting system controls in Abercrombie House.

The Carbon Management Plan outlines existing energy saving projects and plans for future projects such as savings from estate rationalisation (the move to the new building in London).

Overseas Estate

DFID also retains our previous undertaking to become fully carbon neutral across our entire estate by 31 March 2013, and to this end we have now established a baseline carbon footprint. for the majority of our overseas offices. It was recognised that we should not simply offset emissions without having clear plans in place to first reduce our emissions, and 16 of our overseas offices have confirmed that they now have a local strategy to do so.

To meet DFID strategic objectives we do expect to see further growth in some of our country offices so progress towards the GGC targets for our overseas estate will be measured in terms of per head of staff. This would still give due credit to those offices which have already achieved a reduction (the ‘early movers’), and whilst it would give less time for others who have not yet taken action to improve their footprint, there should still be untapped opportunities for them to improve by 2015.

Reporting on progress will continue to be on an individual office basis, but with recognition that local circumstances could mean that some might not be able to contribute to the same extent to the divisional performance as a whole.

**Transparency Commitments**

**Climate Change Adaptation: steps taken to adapt the estate to a changing climate.**

DFID has many programmes in place on a global scale to drive forward climate adaptation. Adaptation is a necessary response and involves understanding climate risk, managing impacts, integrating risk into development practices and finance. Many countries are already struggling to manage effects of current climate variability (e.g. drought; vulnerability to extreme weather events. DFID’s Climate Smart agenda involves looking at all aspects of our estate management to ensure adaptation is considered as part of the Strategic Programme reviews.

**Biodiversity and Natural Environment**

DFID does not have any Sites of Specific Scientific interest and there is no biodiversity at our site in London. We do have biodiversity at our site in East Kilbride and we have an action plan in place. We have completed site habitat surveys of Abercrombie House to identify nationally or locally important species, more fully assess the significance of the impacts of activities and identify priorities for management. The site is not designated for nature conservation and the survey report did not note any protected or locally important species at the time of the audit. However, we do have wild orchids in the grounds which are a protected species and bloom during the summer months. The audit report also highlighted that overall the site has considerable potential for enhancement. The action plan includes proposals to significantly improve plant life and also put in place more bird feeders, hedgehog boxes and a bubble fountain.

**Procurement of food and catering services:**

DFID introduced a new facilities management team to both our UK offices in January 2011 which included catering services. An integral part of the contract was ensuring the procurement of food that meets British or equivalent production standards, and to reduce the environmental impacts of food and catering services and support a healthy balanced diet.

**People:**

DFID actively promotes the social aspects of sustainable development. In 2011-12 (April – December) we have 18 members of staff in the UK who have already taken volunteering days. We have a health and well-being team who actively promote gym membership to staff. DFID’s welfare team ensures that all staff can expect excellent levels of support through all the major changes due to take place in the department over the next few years. We actively promote the cycle to work scheme and have upgraded our cycling facilities to encourage more cyclists in the UK offices. Governance Statement

Introduction

As Accounting Officer for the Departmental Group, I have responsibility for ensuring that DFID has an effective governance framework which provides strategic direction and management of the organisation. In particular that the supporting governance systems are designed to oversee delivery of Ministerial strategy and policy priorities, ensure value for money, manage risks, ensure accountability and deliver efficient and effective organisational performance. This is in support of the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and in accordance with the International Development Acts 2002 & 2006 and Managing Public Money.

During 2011-12, DFID has been implementing significant changes as part of the delivery of its Business Plan and Organisational Vision. This has included a strong focus on results, scaling up for the increase in resources to 0.7% Gross National Income and closer working with the private sector. We are also seeing, as part of these changes, a significant increase in front line staff and a substantial scaling up of DFID’s programmes whilst reducing its core administration costs.

Opinion

As Accounting Officer, my opinion is informed by the work of the Internal Audit Department (IAD), the Audit Committee, my Directors through their annual statements of assurance and the National Audit Office (NAO). I also take note of the work of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI).

On the basis of this advice and evidence, I am satisfied with the overall standard of governance that has been in place in DFID for the year ended 31 March 2012 and up to the date of approval of the annual report and accounts; any weaknesses identified in the internal operating environment have been assessed and appropriate action has been taken, or is in progress to address these.

Governing Bodies

The Secretary of State, with support from the Minister of State and Permanent Under-Secretary of State, sets and makes decisions on DFID strategy and policy.

The Ministerial Board is chaired by the Secretary of State and meets quarterly. The Ministerial Board’s membership has due regard to an appropriate balance of skills, experience and diversity. Its members are:

- Secretary of State (chair)
- The Minister of State
- Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State
- House of Lords Spokesperson for International Development
- Two Non-Executive Board Members
- Permanent Secretary
- Four Directors General (Finance and Corporate Performance; Policy and Global Programmes; Country Programmes; and Humanitarian, Security and Conflict)

The Board’s role is to advise Ministers including:

- Setting DFID’s strategic direction, including thorough oversight of the DFID Business Plan (which includes DFID’s Structural Reform Plan).
- Monitoring the implementation of DFID’s strategy and policy priorities.
- Monitoring progress against the results set out in the Bilateral and Multilateral Aid Reviews and the Humanitarian Emergency Response Review.
- Monitoring and advising on significant risks to implementation of the DFID Business Plan.
- Recommending remedial actions if operational or financial performance is off track.

The role of the Board, the roles of its members and how it makes decisions are set out in the Ministerial Board Operating Framework, which is published on DFID’s website.

The Ministerial Board is supported by a Management Board, chaired by the Permanent Secretary, which meets monthly. The Management Board’s membership has due regard to an appropriate balance of skills, experience and diversity. The Management Board provides strategic direction to the management of DFID’s operations, staff and financial resources. The Management Board’s members are:

- Permanent Secretary (chair)
- Two Non-Executive Board Members
- Four Directors General (Finance and Corporate Performance; Policy and Global Programmes; Country Programmes; and Humanitarian, Security and Conflict).

**Compliance with the Corporate Governance Code of Good Practice**

On the whole, DFID complies with the Corporate Governance in central government departments: Code of Good Practice 2011. The National Audit Office’s checklist was used by DFID as a basis to assess compliance in April 2012. The Code gives Departments the flexibility to depart from some detailed principles in the Code as long as its practices are consistent with those principles. The Secretary of State has decided that DFID should adapt the principles of the Code in the two following ways:

a) The Secretary of State deemed that **two Non-Executive Board Members (NEBMs)** rather than 3-4 as set out in the Code, should be appointed to the Ministerial and Management Boards (Vivienne Cox and Doreen Langston). Two Non-Executive Board members were deemed sufficient given that some of the Management Board’s sub-committees have their own Non-Executive members, who bring additional independent challenge directly to specific areas of the business.

b) The Secretary of State deemed that the Ministerial Board should delegate some of its responsibilities as set out in the Code to the **Management Board**, specifically responsibility for the strategic management of DFID’s operations, staff and financial resources, for risk management and for management information. The Secretary of State deemed that these areas would benefit from more regular oversight as the Management Board meets monthly (whereas the Ministerial Board meets quarterly). In addition, the Management Board sub-committee structure (as set out in this statement) provides an additional level of assurance to the Ministerial Board.

**Boards’ performance**

The lead Non-Executive Board Member (NEBM), Vivienne Cox, supports the Secretary of State, in his capacity as Chair of the Ministerial Board, and the Permanent Secretary, in his capacity as Chair of the Management Board and Accounting Officer, on DFID’s leadership, performance and operations and the annual evaluation of the Board’s performance.

The two NEBMs recently led the Department’s Capability Review, which is published on DFID’s website. The Capability Review recognises that, since the 2009 review, in line with the Coalition Government’s agenda, DFID has strengthened its focus on results, value for money, the use of evidence and transparency. Value for Money in particular has been embedded in DFID’s approach, and is a key element of the business case approach to considering new interventions. DFID increasingly looks at the unit cost of delivery where this is possible, for example the cost of educating children and building schools. DFID’s relations with others, especially in Whitehall, are closer and more strategic. It identified that, in light of increasing challenges, DFID needs to focus on the consistency of leadership and management skills across the organisation and embed further the Coalition Government’s new priorities of working more effectively with the private sector and tackling climate change, and the culture of value for money, across the Department.

The Ministerial Board discussed its annual effectiveness review (carried out in March 2012), led by the lead Non Executive Board Member, at its 25 April 2012 Board meeting. As stated in the foreword, the lead Non Executive Board Member reported that the Ministerial Board has become progressively more effective during the year. The review was generally positive about the Ministerial Board’s effectiveness, in particular on its contribution to the Department’s direction, its focus on delivery and its ways of working. To improve its effectiveness further, the Ministerial Board agreed to improve its oversight of the strategy and performance of DFID’s main arms-length body, the Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC) Group. The Ministerial Board will assess its effectiveness annually and an external effectiveness review will be carried out in 2013-14.

The Management Board discussed its annual effectiveness review (carried out in March 2012), led by its Business Change and Strategy Department, at its 26 April 2012 Board meeting. The review was generally positive about the Management Board’s effectiveness, in particular on its role in: guiding DFID strategy and policy priorities; managing the strategic challenges and risks to the organisation; and ensuring the effective management of DFID’s staff and financial resources. It was also positive about the effectiveness of the Management Board’s sub-committees. To improve its effectiveness further, the Management Board agreed to: take stock every six months on implementing the new Capability Review Action Plan; ask the Audit Committee Chair to report to the Board after each meeting of the Committee; improve communications on DFID’s corporate governance structure; and confirmed that the Senior Leadership Committee should continue to be responsible for succession planning. The Management Board will continue to assess its effectiveness annually and an external effectiveness review will be carried out in 2013-14.

Management information is provided to the Management Board on a quarterly basis through the Quarterly Management Report (which includes information from the Quarterly Data Summary Scorecard sent to HM Treasury). This includes information which provides a quarterly snapshot on how each department within DFID is spending its budget, the results it has achieved and how it is deploying its workforce and is subject to quality assurance. The Management Board is content that this provides sufficient and reliable information for Board-level decision-making.

There have been no Ministerial directions given during 2011-12.

**Highlights of Management Board sub-committees**

The Management Board has five sub-committees:

- The **Audit sub-committee** (chaired by NEBM Doreen Langston and to which the Head of Internal Audit Department is invited), which is responsible for oversight of internal audit in DFID and assessment of the process of risk management.

- The **Senior Leadership sub-committee** (chaired by the Permanent Secretary and to which both NEBMs are invited), which is responsible for overseeing DFID’s policies on leadership, talent management and succession planning. The **Investment sub-committee** (chaired by the Director General for Finance and Corporate Performance), which is responsible for advising on DFID’s bilateral, multilateral and global public goods investment portfolio.

The **Development Policy sub-committee** (chaired by the Director General for Policy and Global Programmes), which is responsible for the operation and delivery of policy proposals.

The **Security sub-committee** (chaired by the Director General for Country Programmes), which is responsible for monitoring the adequacy and effectiveness of all aspects of DFID’s security(^{32}), globally.

During 2011-12:

- The Audit Committee has contributed to a positive corporate governance framework within DFID by advising on corporate risk management processes and by holding Directors to account when improvements are required in governance, risk management and/or control. The Audit Committee have been engaged in the actions being taken to strengthen DFID’s response to fraud and corruption risks.
- The Investment Committee focused on how best to use the improved information and evidence that is becoming available, specifically on value for money and results, on embedding the new systems for programme design and delivery, and on promoting a strong culture of value for money.
- The Senior Leadership Committee has focused on strengthening leadership behaviour and practice, and on re-balancing DFID’s senior staffing to meet the changing requirements of the business.
- The Development Policy Committee covered a broad spectrum of policy areas including governance, fragile states, climate and environment, and our engagement with multilaterals.
- The Security Committee continued to monitor developments and security incidents across the regions, as well as commission duty of care reviews for contractors and staff appointed in country.

**Risk Management and Internal Control Environment**

DFID’s risk management architecture was reviewed in financial year 2010-11 and continues to be developed to deliver more active and effective management of risks. Management of risk in DFID is supported by the Management Board’s Risk Appetite Statement; this recognises and supports the challenge of working in some of the most fragile and conflict affected countries.

DFID recognises three levels of risk; strategic risk, operational risk and project risk. The Corporate Risk Register focuses on DFID’s key strategic risks: country context, policy environment, international, delivery, economic, climate change, fraud and corruption, people, transparency, safety and security and value for money and financial control.

The Management Board undertake a global review of strategic risks each quarter. A programme of focused reviews with corporate risk owners is also undertaken at every Management Board meeting. DFID’s Corporate Risks are expressed as high level risks and risks have continued to be refined and regularly updated over the year. No completely new themes/risks have been added to the Corporate Risk Register during 2011-12. However, the emphasis and responses to certain risks have changed, in particular the challenges of operating in an increasing number of fragile states, scaling up DFID’s spend and tackling the risk of fraud and corruption have been considered carefully and actions to mitigate these risks have been strengthened.

______________________________________________________________________

(^{32}) Its primary focus is on people security. However, all aspects of physical, personnel, information security or health and safety may be reviewed. At operating level, risk registers are maintained within Operational Plans. As recognised in the recent internal audit, there has been mixed success in embedding this as a ‘live’ tool to drive decision making, however work continues to improve on this position and to enhance integration of corporate and operational level risks during 2012/13.

Finally, risks must be assessed as part of the strategic case within the five part Business Case. The Business Case sets out the rationale for choosing a project, programme, or approach to funding. It provides a consistent approach to the choices and design of DFID interventions. Business Cases are required for all programmes irrespective of value.

DFID has seen an emergence of larger and more complex fraud against its funds. Note 25 to the Accounts includes the number of losses and total value. Detail is given of individual cases over £0.25m in line with Managing Public Money requirements. Our Counter Fraud Unit continues to make good recoveries to minimise loss to taxpayer funds and supports a robust approach to sanctions on perpetrators of fraud. There has been a renewed focus on capturing and sharing lessons learned to improve controls to fight fraud and other abuse, both internally and with DFID partner organisations.

In response to both the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report on DFID’s Financial Management and ICAI’s Anti-Corruption Report, and given external concerns surrounding DFID’s increasing focus on fragile and conflict affected states, DFID have made strenuous efforts to build a more cohesive response to management of fraud and corruption risk, including a Management Board-sponsored review. This has been detailed in our management responses to the ICAI anti-corruption report (available on our website at: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/What-we-do/How-UK-aid-is-spent/Evaluation/).

Given the environment in which the Department works and the diversity of the Department’s programmes, measuring losses due to fraud is difficult. We commissioned work by the Centre for Counter Fraud Studies at Portsmouth University to explore the extent to which fraud loss measurement methodologies could be used in international development and applied by DFID. The work found that trying to produce an aggregate measure of fraud loss for the Department’s budget would be costly, would take some years and would ultimately only produce a partial picture. The Department’s own experience supports this conclusion. Any aggregate assessment that was produced would be of dubious value, given the methodological problems and evidence gaps. Given these findings, the Department will focus efforts on ensuring good fraud risk assessment for all of the Department’s expenditure and mitigation and safeguards as described above. Any aggregate assessment that was produced would be of dubious value, given the methodological problems and evidence gaps. Given these findings, the Department will focus efforts on ensuring good fraud risk assessment for all of the Department’s expenditure and mitigation and safeguards as described above. Where fraud loss measurement methodologies make sense for individual programmes or aspects of DFID expenditure, we will use them in monitoring and tracking risk and assessing the likely impact of mitigation measures. Within the strengthened approach to safeguarding taxpayers’ money introduced by the Secretary of State, increased use of forensic audits and spot checks will continue to build our knowledge. As this knowledge base develops, we will keep our approach to fraud loss measurement under review.

DFID’s systems of internal controls include the following:

- Operational plans which set clear objectives linked to the Structural Reform Plan
- Delegation of authority to Directors and Heads of overseas offices/heads of department and staff
- Setting personal objectives for all staff and an organisational wide framework of rules and procedures
- Monthly financial reporting to the Management Board

During the year recommendations have been made by NAO, Internal Audit and ICAI to strengthen DFID’s control environment and in particular Directors have made good progress in raising the profile of financial management and implementing “Finance for All”, DFID’s financial improvement plan. IAD have assessed the adequacy of the system of internal control within DFID as providing a moderate level of assurance. Areas of weakness were identified, and action plans are in place to implement the agreed recommendations from audits and reviews. These include:

- Widening the scope and strengthening due diligence checks on partner organisations, both at the outset and through regular monitoring using mechanisms such as receipt and scrutiny of annual audited statements.
- Strengthening capacity in anti-fraud and anti-corruption and undertaking country level corruption risk assessments.
- Continuing to improve pipeline, forecasting and budgeting to ensure that payment flows are managed and monitored to achieve maximum results and minimise the risk of payments being made in advance of need.

The main areas identified for improvement in this year’s Directors’ Statement of Assurance process were forecasting and budgeting, quality assurance and security. Each Director identifying such an area is responsible for ensuring effective remedial action. DFID has also been implementing the Managing Risk of Financial Loss initiative. This reviews key processes end to end. We have not identified any critical weaknesses from the systems reviewed in 2011-12.

As detailed within the Management Commentary, DFID has reported an excess vote in respect of Capital Annually Managed Expenditure (AME). This is in relation to the planned disposal of DFID’s 40% shareholding in Actis LLP. This was expected to be completed within 2011-12 and as such was included as income within the 2011-12 Supplementary Estimate, but full agreement was not reached until 30th April 2012. As a result DFID did not generate the £1.6m included within the voted limit and has reported expenditure exceeding its Capital AME allowance. Consequently the accounts include a qualified audit opinion on the grounds of regularity. The Department has carried out an investigation into the factors contributing to the breach, both in terms of the delayed completion of the transaction and of the Estimate process, in relation to identifying changes in Treasury guidance and also monitoring of the control limits, particularly in relation to non-routine transactions such as negative voted limits. The findings of the review will be used to inform the strengthening of processes and controls in the affected areas.

DFID holds a moderate amount of classified information. We take our responsibility for management of all data very seriously. DFID remains independently certified as compliant with ISO/IEC 27001:2005, the international standard for information security management systems. We had no personal data incidents in 2011-12.

Arms-Length Bodies

During 2011-12 DFID had four Arms-Length Bodies:

- Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI)
- Commonwealth Scholarship Commission (CSC)
- Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC Group plc)
- Actis LLP

As Accounting Officer, I have responsibility for two Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs); the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) and the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission (CSC). Budget allocated to ICAI for 2011-12 was £2.1m. Grant in aid to CSC for 2011-12 was £19.5m.

ICAI’s role is to provide independent scrutiny of UK aid, to promote the delivery of value for money for British taxpayers and to maximise the impact of aid. ICAI is an Advisory Non Departmental Public Body sponsored by DFID. ICAI reports directly to Parliament through the International Development Select Committee (IDC), as set out in an Exchange of Letters between the Secretary of State and the Chair of the IDC. The Secretary of State is ultimately accountable to Parliament for ICAI. The Secretary of State and DFID Management Board meet Commissioners regularly to check that ICAI is able to carry out its work effectively. DFID officials apply project evaluation tools to monitor ICAI’s performance.

ICAI’s governance is set out in its Memorandum of Understanding and Framework Agreement. ICAI Commissioners have approved a Corporate Plan setting out internal control arrangements, including financial controls and risk management arrangements. ICAI’s Annual Reports will report on performance against the Plan. DFID’s Internal Audit Department carried out an audit of ICAI in 2011-12 to provide assurance to DFID’s Permanent Secretary on governance, risk management and control.

DFID is the lead department and main sponsor for the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission. The Commission is independent of Government in its decision-making and operations. The Commission submits an Annual Report each year to the Secretary of State on its work. The annual income and expenditure of the Commission are incorporated in the Departmental Group Accounts.

The remaining Arms-Length Bodies are CDC a public limited company and Actis LLP a limited liability partnership. CDC is governed by a Board of Directors who are answerable to the shareholder through the normal company governance processes. DFID has 100% ownership of CDC. DFID is not involved in CDC operations and does not take part in operational investment decision-taking.

As explained on pages 96 to 97 the Department completed the planned disposal of its 40% shareholding in Actis LLP on 30th April 2012, when binding sale agreements were signed and the disposal communicated to Parliament. Consequently the disposal of the shareholding will be reflected within the 2012-13 Accounts and is included within these Accounts as an Available for Sale Current Financial Asset.

DFID’s relationships with CDC and Actis LLP are set out in frameworks covering governance, accountability and reporting (and investment policy for CDC).

**Closing Statement**

I am satisfied with DFID’s governance arrangements in terms of safeguarding the use of taxpayers’ money. Recognising the changing environment for the Department, including increasing engagement in fragile states and additional independent scrutiny from Independent Commission for Aid Impact, DFID will continue to strengthen its governance arrangements. This will ensure we achieve value for money and results from the resources given to us, and achieve our key objective of reducing poverty.

Mark Lowcock Accounting Officer for the Department of International Development

### Ministerial Board attendance in 2011-12

Ministerial Board meetings in 2011-12: July 2011, November 2011, February 2012, April 2012

| Ministerial Board Member | Meetings attended | |---------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------| | Secretary of State | 4 of a possible | | Andrew Mitchell MP | 4 | | Minister of State | 3 of a possible | | Alan Duncan MP | 4 | | Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State | 3 of a possible | | Stephen O’Brien MP | 4 | | Lords Spokesperson | 0 of a possible | | Baroness Northover (From November 2011) | 3 | | Non Executive Board Member | 4 of a possible | | Vivienne Cox | 4 | | Non Executive Board Member | 4 of a possible | | Doreen Langston | 4 | | Permanent Secretary | 4 of a possible | | Mark Lowcock | 4 | | DG, Finance & Corporate Performance | 4 of a possible | | Richard Calvert | 4 | | DG, Policy & Global Programmes | 4 of a possible | | Michael Anderson | 4 | | DG, Country Programmes | 2 of a possible | | Joy Hutcheon | 3 | | DG, Humanitarian, Security and Conflict | 4 of a possible | | Sharon White (July 2011) | 4 | | Mark Bowman (November to April 2012) | 4 | Management Board meetings in 2011-12: Monthly except for August

Ministerial Board meetings in 2011-12: Monthly except for August

| Management Board Member | Meetings attended | |--------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------| | Permanent Secretary | 11 of a possible | | Mark Lowcock | 11 | | DG, Finance and Corporate Performance | 10 of a possible | | Richard Calvert | 11 | | DG, Policy and Global Programmes | 9 of a possible | | Michael Anderson | 11 | | DG, Country Programmes | 10 of a possible | | Joy Hutcheon (acting April-November 2011) | 11 | | DG, Humanitarian, Security and Conflict | 9 of a possible | | Sharon White (April-September 2011) | 10 | | Mark Bowman (From November 2011) | | | Non Executive Board Member | 5 of a possible | | Vivienne Cox (From September 2011) | 7 | | Non Executive Board Member | 11 of a possible | | Doreen Langston | 11 | Statement of Accounting Officer’s responsibilities

Under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (the GRAA), HM Treasury has directed Department for International Development to prepare, for each financial year, consolidated accounts detailing the resources acquired, held or disposed of, and the use of resources, during the year by the Department and its sponsored non-departmental public bodies designated by order made under the GRAA 2000 (Estimates and Accounts Order 2011) (together known as the ‘departmental group’, consisting of the department and sponsored bodies listed in note 28 to the accounts on page 186).

The accounts are prepared on an accruals basis and must give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the Department and the Departmental Group and of the net resource outturn, resources applied to objectives, recognised gains and losses and cash flows of the Departmental Group for the financial year.

In preparing the accounts, the Accounting Officer of the Department is required to comply with the requirements of the Government Financial Reporting Manual and in particular to:

- observe the Accounts Direction issued by the Treasury, including the relevant accounting and disclosure requirements, and apply suitable accounting policies on a consistent basis;
- ensure that the department has in place appropriate and reliable systems and procedures to carry out the consolidation process;
- make judgements and estimates on a reasonable basis, including those judgements involved in consolidating the accounting information provided by non-departmental public bodies;
- state whether applicable accounting standards as set out in the Government Financial Reporting Manual have been followed, and disclose and explain any material departures in the accounts; and
- prepare the accounts on a going concern basis.

HM Treasury has appointed me, as Permanent Secretary, as Accounting Officer of the Department for International Development. I am also the Accounting Officer for the non-departmental public bodies within the departmental group.

The responsibilities of an Accounting Officer, including responsibility for the propriety and regularity of the public finances for which the Accounting Officer is answerable, for keeping proper records and for safeguarding the assets of the department or non-departmental public body for which the Accounting Officer is responsible, are set out in Managing Public Money published by HM Treasury.

Mark Lowcock Accounting Officer for the Department for International Development 18 June 2012 The Certificate of the Comptroller and Auditor General to the House of Commons

I certify that I have audited the financial statements of the Department for International Development and of its Departmental Group for the year ended 31 March 2012 under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. The Department consists of the core Department and its agencies. The Departmental Group consists of the Department and the bodies designated for inclusion under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Estimates and Accounts) Order 2011. The financial statements comprise: the Department’s and Departmental Group’s Statements of Comprehensive Net Expenditure, Financial Position, Cash Flows, Changes in Taxpayers’ Equity; and the related notes. I have also audited the Statement of Parliamentary Supply and the related notes. These financial statements have been prepared under the accounting policies set out within them. I have also audited the information in the Remuneration Report that is described in that report as having been audited.

Respective responsibilities of the Accounting Officer and auditor

As explained more fully in the Statement of Accounting Officer’s Responsibilities, the Accounting Officer is responsible for the preparation of the financial statements and for being satisfied that they give a true and fair view. My responsibility is to audit, certify and report on the financial statements in accordance with the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. I conducted my audit in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (UK and Ireland). Those standards require me and my staff to comply with the Auditing Practices Board’s Ethical Standards for Auditors.

Scope of the audit of the financial statements

An audit involves obtaining evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements sufficient to give reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatement, whether caused by fraud or error. This includes an assessment of: whether the accounting policies are appropriate to the Department’s and the Departmental Group’s circumstances and have been consistently applied and adequately disclosed; the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by the Accounting Officer; and the overall presentation of the financial statements. In addition I read all the financial and non-financial information in the Annual Report to identify material inconsistencies with the audited financial statements. If I become aware of any apparent material misstatements or inconsistencies I consider the implications for my certificate.

I am required to obtain evidence sufficient to give reasonable assurance that the Statement of Parliamentary Supply properly presents the outturn against voted Parliamentary control totals and that those totals have not been exceeded. The voted Parliamentary control totals are Departmental Expenditure Limits (Resource and Capital), Annually Managed Expenditure (Resource and Capital), Non-Budget (Resource) and Net Cash Requirement. I am also required to obtain evidence sufficient to give reasonable assurance that the expenditure and income recorded in the financial statements have been applied to the purposes intended by Parliament and the financial transactions recorded in the financial statements conform to the authorities which govern them. Basis for Qualified Opinion on regularity

Parliament authorised net expenditure for the Department which required the generation of at least £1.6 million of annually managed capital net income. The Department did not generate any such proceeds in 2011-12, meaning that his authorised limit was breached and so I have qualified my regularity opinion on the Department’s financial statements in this regard. HM Treasury propose to ask Parliament to authorise a further £1.6 million of annually managed capital expenditure.

Qualified Opinion on regularity

In my opinion, except for the excess described in the basis for qualified opinion paragraph, in all material respects:

- the Statement of Parliamentary Supply properly presents the outturn against voted Parliamentary control totals for the year ended 31 March 2012 and shows that those totals have not been exceeded; and
- the expenditure and income recorded in the financial statements have been applied to the purposes intended by Parliament and the financial transactions recorded in the financial statements conform to the authorities which govern them.

More details of the reasons for my qualified audit opinion are set out in my report on pages 131 to 132.

Opinion on financial statements

In my opinion:

- the financial statements give a true and fair view of the state of the Department’s and the Departmental Group’s affairs as at 31 March 2012 and of the Department’s net operating cost and Departmental Group’s net operating cost for the year then ended; and
- the financial statements have been properly prepared in accordance with the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 and HM Treasury directions issued thereunder.

Opinion on other matters

In my opinion:

- the part of the Remuneration Report to be audited has been properly prepared in accordance with HM Treasury directions made under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000; and
- the information given in ‘Senior Management’, ‘Management Commentary’, ‘Strategy for Sustainability’ and ‘Public Interest and Other Matters’, in the Annual Report for the financial year for which the financial statements are prepared is consistent with the financial statements.

Matters on which I report by exception

I have nothing to report in respect of the following matters which I report to you if, in my opinion:

- adequate accounting records have not been kept or returns adequate for my audit have not been received from branches not visited by my staff; or
- the financial statements and the part of the Remuneration Report to be audited are not in agreement with the accounting records and returns; or I have not received all of the information and explanations I require for my audit; or the Governance Statement does not reflect compliance with HM Treasury’s guidance.

Amyas C E Morse Comptroller and Auditor General

22 June 2012

National Audit Office 157-197 Buckingham Palace Road Victoria London SW1W 9SP Excess Vote Report

Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General to the House of Commons

Introduction

1. The Department for International Development (the Department) was set up in 1997. It aims to reduce poverty and create wealth in poor countries, strengthen governance and security in these countries, and tackle climate change. It pursues the eight global Millennium Development Goals set by the United Nations in 2000.

2. In 2011-12, the Department was responsible for £7.9 billion of UK public expenditure. Its administration costs totalled £123 million.

3. The Department is required to prepare its financial statements in accordance with the Government Financial Reporting Manual (FReM). Under the FReM, the Department is required to apply International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) as adapted or interpreted for the public sector.

Purpose of Report

4. The net expenditure of government departments is authorised by Acts of Parliament. These Acts set a series of annual limits on the net expenditure which the department may not exceed and on the total overall cash they can use. Where these limits are breached, I qualify my regularity opinion on the financial statements. HM Treasury then prepares a statement of all such excesses in the year and requests that the House of Commons authorise the expenditure by passing an additional Act of Parliament, which is part of the Supply and Appropriations (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act.

5. For the 2011-12 financial year, these authorised limits were aligned to those used by HM Treasury to control public expenditure. Further detail on the authorised limits can be found within the Main Supply Estimates for 2011-12.

6. Parliament authorised net expenditure for the Department which required the generation of at least £1.6 million of annually managed capital net income. The Department did not generate any such proceeds in 2011-12 meaning that this authorised limit was breached and so I have qualified my regularity opinion on the Department’s financial statements in this regard. HM Treasury propose to ask Parliament to authorise a further £1.6 million of annually managed capital income.

Explanation for Qualified Audit Opinion

7. In July 2011, the Department announced that it had entered into negotiations with the management of Actis LLP over the sale of its remaining 40% stake in that organisation. The Department anticipated that the sale would be completed in the 2011-12 financial year and it thus sought provision (in the Supply and Appropriations [Anticipation and Adjustments] Act 2012) to retain the element of the proceeds relating to the original book value of the shareholding as allowable income. This amounted to £1.6 million. Any additional proceeds were to be surrendered to the Consolidated Fund.

8. Negotiations with Actis LLP continued during the early months of 2012, but it was not until 30 April 2012 that agreement for the sale of the government’s stake was signed. Because it has

______________________________________________________________________

33 The Supply and Appropriations (Main Estimates) Act 2011 and the Supply and Appropriations (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2012. 34 http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/intro_main_supply_estimates_april11.pdf 35 The cash sale proceeds are $13m to be paid in two instalments. not entered into a binding agreement for the sale by 31 March 2012, the Department could not recognise the income and has therefore breached the authorised limit.

09. The Department views the breach of limit as a serious matter and has considered the lessons arising. From an initial review, the Department has identified that staff had not appreciated that the failure to generate income from the proceeds of the sale before 31 March 2012 would result in an excess. The process of selling its stake in Actis LLP has been drawn out over an extended period lasting over two years from the initial contact with the management of the organisation. Completion dates continued to be postponed as negotiations continued. The date to finalise the sales contract slipped into April 2012 without the Department being aware of the consequences for its financial reporting and thus able to consider what, if any, actions could have been taken.

10. Further analysis is being carried out by the Department on both the parliamentary reporting implications and the project management aspects to make sure lessons are learned; to ensure vigilance is maintained and that monitoring is improved to prevent any recurrence of such an excess.

Amyas C E Morse Comptroller and Auditor General

22 June 2012

National Audit Office 157-197 Buckingham Palace Road Victoria London SW1W 9SP

## Statement of Parliamentary Supply

### Summary of Resource and Capital Outturn 2011-12

| Note | Voted | Non-Voted | Total | Voted | Non-Voted | Total | Voted outturn compared with Estimate: saving/(excess) | Total | |------|-------|-----------|-------|-------|-----------|-------|-----------------------------------------------------|-------| | | | | | | | | | | | **Departmental Expenditure Limit** | | | | | | | | | | – Resource | 5,341,294 | 867,900 | 6,209,194 | 5,249,407 | 934,125 | 6,183,532 | 91,887 | 5,930,033 | | – Capital | 1,658,105 | – | 1,658,105 | 1,645,907 | – | 1,645,907 | 12,198 | 1,558,696 | | **Annually Managed Expenditure** | | | | | | | | | | – Resource | 211,031 | – | 211,031 | 43,960 | – | 43,960 | 167,071 | 249,328 | | – Capital | (1,600) | – | (1,600) | – | – | – | (1,600)\* | – | | **Total Budget** | 7,208,830 | 867,900 | 8,076,730 | 6,939,274 | 934,125 | 7,873,399 | 269,556 | 7,738,057 | | **Non-Budget** | | | | | | | | | | – Resource | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | **Total** | 7,208,830 | 867,900 | 8,076,730 | 6,939,274 | 934,125 | 7,873,399 | 269,556 | 7,738,057 |

| Note | 2011-12 | 2010-11 | |------|---------|---------| | | £000 | £000 | | **Net Cash Requirement 2011-12** | | | | Net Cash Requirement | 5 | 6,649,864 | 6,459,227 | 190,637 | 6,093,191 |

| Note | 2011-12 | 2010-11 | |------|---------|---------| | | £000 | £000 | | **Administration Costs 2011-12** | | | | Administration Costs | 4.2 | 138,212 | 123,345 | 149,785 |

Figures in the areas outlined in bold are voted totals or other totals subject to Parliamentary control

- The Department has incurred an Excess of £1.6m against its voted capital AME limit in relation to a transaction where DFID was seeking to dispose of an investment. This was expected to be completed within 2011-12 but full agreement was not reached until 30 April 2012. As a result DFID did not generate the £1.6m included within the voted limit. The Department will seek Parliamentary approval by way of an Excess Vote in the next Appropriation Act.

Explanations of variances between Estimate and outturn are given in Note 3 and in the Management Commentary.

## Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure for the year ended 31 March 2012

| Note | DFID 2011-12 £000 | Restated 2010-11 £000 | |------|-------------------|-----------------------| | | DFID Departmental Group | Departmental Group | | **Administration costs** | | | | Staff costs | 8 | 61,002 | 61,002 | 76,707 | 76,707 | | Other costs | 9 | 66,730 | 68,829 | 77,472 | 79,055 | | Income | 11 | (6,486) | (6,486) | (6,070) | (5,977) | | **Programme expenditure** | | | | Staff costs | 8 | 53,325 | 53,325 | 35,569 | 35,569 | | Other costs | 10 | 6,727,035 | 6,743,088 | 6,908,230 | 6,924,029 | | Income | 11 | (2,814) | (2,189) | (6,642) | (5,716) | | **Grant in Aid to NDPBs** | | | | Administration Grant in Aid | 28 | 2,144 | – | 1,676 | – | | Programme Grant in Aid | 28 | 17,399 | – | 16,725 | – | | **Net Operating Cost for the year ended 31 March** | | | | | 6,918,335 | 6,917,569 | 7,103,667 | 7,103,667 | | **Total expenditure** | | | | | 6,927,635 | 6,926,244 | 7,116,379 | 7,115,360 | | **Total income** | | | | | (9,300) | (8,675) | (12,712) | (11,693) | | **Net Operating Cost for the year ended 31 March** | | | | | 6,918,335 | 6,917,569 | 7,103,667 | 7,103,667 | | **Other Comprehensive Net Expenditure** | | | | Net (gain)/loss on: | | | | – revaluation of property plant & equipment | 21 | (2,226) | (2,226) | 1,070 | 1,070 | | intangibles | 21 | (37) | (37) | 1,106 | 1,106 | | – revaluation of International Financial Institutions | 21 | (152,750) | (152,750) | (47,245) | (47,245) | | **Total comprehensive expenditure for the year ended 31 March** | | | | | 6,763,322 | 6,762,556 | 7,058,598 | 7,058,598 |

## Consolidated Statement of Financial Position as at 31 March 2012

| Note | DFID | Departmental Group | DFID | Departmental Group | Departmental Group | |------|------|--------------------|------|--------------------|--------------------| | | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | | Non-current assets: | | | | | | | | Property, plant and equipment | 12 | 83,166 | 83,166 | 87,085 | 87,085 | 92,724 | | Intangible assets | 13 | 21,380 | 21,380 | 21,867 | 21,867 | 24,602 | | Financial Assets | 14.1 | 4,048,864 | 4,048,864 | 3,867,211 | 3,867,211 | 3,813,655 | | Trade & other receivables | 16 | 79,703 | 79,703 | 111,419 | 111,419 | 128,964 | | **Total non-current assets** | | 4,233,113 | 4,233,113 | 4,087,582 | 4,087,582 | 4,059,945 | | Current Assets: | | | | | | | | Financial Assets | 14.1 | 1,678 | 1,678 | – | – | – | | Trade & other receivables | 16.1 | 71,768 | 71,768 | 157,344 | 157,344 | 361,771 | | Cash & cash equivalents | 17 | 2,880 | 4,412 | 3,605 | 3,605 | 4,199 | | **Total current assets** | | 76,326 | 77,858 | 160,949 | 160,949 | 365,970 | | **Total assets** | | 4,309,439 | 4,310,971 | 4,248,531 | 4,248,531 | 4,425,915 | | Current liabilities | | | | | | | | Trade and other payables | 18 | (2,770,531) | (2,771,297) | (2,406,139) | (2,406,139) | (1,663,334) | | Provisions | 19 | (79,519) | (79,519) | (78,210) | (78,210) | (64,952) | | Bank Overdraft | 17 | (5,909) | (5,909) | (20,681) | (20,681) | (30,666) | | **Total current liabilities** | | (2,855,959) | (2,856,725) | (2,505,030) | (2,505,030) | (1,758,952) | | Non-current assets less net current liabilities | | 1,453,480 | 1,454,246 | 1,743,501 | 1,743,501 | 2,666,963 | | Non-current liabilities | | | | | | | | Provisions | 19 | (938,402) | (938,402) | (914,826) | (914,826) | (674,280) | | Other payables | 18 | (46,210) | (46,210) | (46,766) | (46,766) | (46,454) | | **Total non-current liabilities** | | (984,612) | (984,612) | (961,592) | (961,592) | (720,734) | | **Total Assets less liabilities** | | 468,868 | 469,634 | 781,909 | 781,909 | 1,946,229 | | Taxpayers’ equity and other reserves: | | | | | | | | General fund | 20 | (1,404,031) | (1,403,265) | (936,187) | (936,187) | 272,909 | | Revaluation reserve | 21 | 1,872,899 | 1,872,899 | 1,718,096 | 1,718,096 | 1,673,320 | | **Total equity** | | 468,868 | 469,634 | 781,909 | 781,909 | 1,946,229 |

[1] The Department’s total non-current liabilities and negative general fund reflect the inclusion of liabilities falling due in future years. Under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, no money may be drawn from the fund other than that required for the service of the specified year. In common with other government departments, the future financing of DFID’s liabilities is to be met by future grants of supply and application of future income, both to be approved annually by Parliament. Such approval for 2012-13 amounts has already been provided and there is no reason to believe the allocation for 2013-14, 2014-15 and beyond will not be forthcoming. It has accordingly been considered appropriate to adopt a going concern basis for the preparation of these statements.

Mark Lowcock Accounting Officer for the Department for International Development 18 June 2012

## Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows for the year ended 31 March 2012

| Note | 2011-12 £000 | 2010-11 £000 | |------|--------------|--------------| | | | | | Cash flows from operating activities | 22.1 | (6,440,458) | (6,075,562) | | Cash flows from investing activities | 22.2 | (18,051) | 184,545 | | Cash flows from financing activities | 22.3 | 6,465,351 | 6,102,686 | | **Net increase/(decrease) in cash and cash equivalents in the period before adjustment for receipts and payments to the Consolidated Fund** | | 6,842 | 211,669 | | Payment of amounts due to the Consolidated Fund | | 8,737 | (202,278) | | **Net increase/(decrease) in cash and cash equivalents in the period after adjustment for receipts and payments to the Consolidated Fund** | | 15,579 | 9,391 | | Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the period | 17 | (17,076) | (26,467) | | Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the period | 17 | (1,497) | (17,076) |

## Consolidated Statement of Changes in Taxpayers’ Equity for the year ended 31 March 2012

| Note | DFID General Fund £000 | DFID Revaluation Reserve £000 | DFID Total Reserves £000 | Departmental Group General Fund £000 | Departmental Group Revaluation Reserve £000 | Departmental Group Total Reserves £000 | |------|------------------------|-------------------------------|--------------------------|-------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------| | **Balance at 1 April 2010** | | | | | | | | 20, 21 | 272,909 | 1,673,320 | 1,946,229 | 272,909 | 1,673,320 | 1,946,229 | | **Net Parliamentary Funding – drawn down** | | | | | | | | 20 | 6,077,190 | – | 6,077,190 | 6,077,190 | – | 6,077,190 | | **Supply payable adjustment** | | | | | | | | 20 | 16,001 | – | 16,001 | 16,001 | – | 16,001 | | **CFERs payable to the Consolidated Fund** | | | | | | | | 20 | (199,174) | – | (199,174) | (199,174) | – | (199,174) | | **Comprehensive Net Expenditure for the Year** | | | | | | | | 20, 21 | (7,103,667) | 45,069 | (7,058,598) | (7,103,667) | 45,069 | (7,058,598) | | **Non-Cash Adjustments:** | | | | | | | | **Non-cash charges – auditor’s remuneration** | | | | | | | | 20 | 261 | – | 261 | 261 | – | 261 | | **Movements in Reserves** | | | | | | | | **Realised element to General Fund** | | | | | | | | 20, 21 | 293 | (293) | – | 293 | (293) | – | | **Balance at 31 March 2011** | | | | | | | | | (936,187) | 1,718,096 | 781,909 | (936,187) | 1,718,096 | 781,909 | | **Net Parliamentary Funding – drawn down** | | | | | | | | 20 | 6,449,350 | – | 6,449,350 | 6,449,350 | – | 6,449,350 | | **Supply payable adjustment** | | | | | | | | 20 | 9,877 | – | 9,877 | 9,877 | – | 9,877 | | **CFERs payable to the Consolidated Fund** | | | | | | | | 20 | (9,211) | – | (9,211) | (9,211) | – | (9,211) | | **Comprehensive Net Expenditure for the Year** | | | | | | | | 20, 21 | (6,918,335) | 155,013 | (6,763,322) | (6,917,569) | 155,013 | (6,762,556) | | **Non-Cash Adjustments:** | | | | | | | | **Non-cash charges – auditor’s remuneration** | | | | | | | | 9, 20 | 265 | – | 265 | 265 | – | 265 | | **Movements in Reserves** | | | | | | | | **Realised element to General Fund** | | | | | | | | 20, 21 | 210 | (210) | – | 210 | (210) | – | | **Balance at 31 March 2012** | | | | | | | | | (1,404,031) | 1,872,899 | 468,868 | (1,403,265) | 1,872,899 | 469,634 | Notes to the Departmental Accounts

1. Statement of accounting policies

These financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the 2011-12 Government Financial Reporting Manual (FReM), issued by HM Treasury. The accounting policies contained in the FReM apply International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) as adapted or interpreted for the public sector context. Where the FReM permits a choice of accounting policy, the accounting policy which is judged to be most appropriate to the particular circumstances of DFID for the purpose of giving a true and fair view has been selected. They have been applied consistently in dealing with items considered material in relation to the accounts.

In addition to the primary statements prepared under IFRS, the FReM also requires the Department to prepare an additional primary statement. The Statement of Parliamentary Supply and supporting notes show outturn against Estimate in terms of the net resource requirement and the net cash requirement.

1.1 Accounting Convention

The accounts have been prepared on a going concern basis. These accounts have been prepared under the historical cost convention, modified to account for the revaluation of non-current assets at their value to DFID by reference to their current costs or fair value as appropriate.

1.2 Basis of consolidation

These accounts comprise a consolidation of DFID and those entities which fall within its departmental boundary, as defined in the FReM and make up the “Departmental Group”. Transactions between entities included in the consolidation are eliminated.

A list of all those entities within the departmental boundary is given in note 28 of the Accounts on page 186.

1.3 Coverage of Accounts

These accounts cover the activities of DFID and its non-departmental public bodies only. DFID is also the sponsor department for CDC Group plc (CDC), a self-financing Public Corporation. During 2011-12 DFID was also sponsor department of Actis LLP, a fund management partnership, through its 40% shareholding. CDC and Actis LLP results are not consolidated in these accounts as under FReM rules Public Corporations are outside the departmental resource accounting boundary. DFID’s ownership interest of CDC is recognised in non-current asset investments. DFID disposed of its 40% shareholding in Actis LLP on 30 April 2012. DFID’s shareholding in Actis LLP is included as an Available for Sale current asset investment in note 14.1 of the Accounts on page 161.

In line with FReM rules on activities charged direct to the Consolidated Fund, the primary statements in these accounts do not include amounts attributed to DFID to reflect spending on development activities by the European Community from the EC budget. These are however required to be included when calculating resource outturn within the Statement of Parliamentary Supply for the year under review. As a result this expenditure is included within both note 3 of the Accounts on page 147 and note 4 of the Accounts on page 149 which is required to detail the calculation between resource outturn for the year and the total included in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure. The Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Expenditure does include UK contributions through the extra-budgetary European Development Funds (EDF), as these payments are made directly by DFID and are included in grants payable. 1.4 Operating Income

Operating income principally comprises rental income, loan interest and profits on disposal of non-current assets. It includes both income appropriated-in-aid and income to the Consolidated Fund which HM Treasury has agreed should be treated as operating income under the ambit of the Department.

1.5 Administration and Programme Expenditure

The Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure is analysed between administration and programme income and expenditure. The classification of expenditure and income as administration or as programme follows the definition of administration costs set out in Consolidated Budgeting Guidelines by HM Treasury. Administration costs are those which fall within the administration cost control regime, together with associated operating income. Programme costs reflect non-administrative costs, including payments of grants and other disbursements by the department and certain staff costs where they relate directly to service delivery. The Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure reflects the total amount reallocated from administration costs to programme costs in respect of frontline expenditure.

1.6 Grants payable

Grants payable are recorded as expenditure in the period that the underlying event or activity giving entitlement to the grant occurs. Where the period to which the payments are to be applied is clearly defined, the appropriate resource adjustments are made. Where grants are made to governments or international organisations and UK contributions are pooled with others and cannot therefore be matched directly with particular activities expenditures are recognised in the period when agreed conditions for payment have been met.

In certain cases, grant contributions to international organisations are made in the form of promissory notes. The full amount of the promissory note is recognised as an expense in the period in which the note is deposited. Amounts not drawn down in cash from promissory notes at the statement of financial position date are included in trade and other payables.

1.7 Research and development

Expenditure by DFID from programme budgets in support of research and development is charged to the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure in the period in which it is incurred, unless it meets the criteria for capitalisation as defined in IAS 38.

1.8 Value Added Tax (VAT)

Income and expenditure is shown net of VAT where output tax is charged or input tax is recoverable. Irrecoverable VAT incurred is included within the overall cost of purchases. Amounts owed by HM Revenue & Customs for VAT at the statement of financial position date are included in receivables.

1.9 Foreign Exchange

Transactions which are denominated in foreign currency are accounted for at the sterling equivalent at the exchange rate ruling at the date of each transaction. Monetary assets and liabilities denominated in foreign currency are translated into sterling at the exchange rates ruling at the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position date. Differences on translation of realised balances are recognised as operating costs within the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure. 1.10 Pensions

Past and present home civil servants are covered by the provisions of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS) which is a multi-employer defined benefit scheme and is unfunded, except in respect of dependants’ benefits. DFID recognises the expected cost of these elements on a systematic and rational basis over the period which benefits from employees’ services by payment to the PCSPS of amounts calculated on an accruing basis. Liability for payment of future benefits is a charge on the PCSPS. In respect of the defined contribution schemes, the department recognises the contributions payable for the year. Details of rates and amounts of contributions during the year are given in Note 8 of the Accounts on page 153.

1.11 Property, plant & equipment

Title to freehold land and buildings is held in the name of, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State for International Development. Land and buildings are shown at current replacement cost based on professional valuations carried out at not more than five year intervals. No indices are available to update the cost between valuation points so current replacement cost equates to depreciated historic cost.

Refurbishments to freehold and leasehold properties are capitalised at the actual costs incurred.

Plant and equipment used for general administration purposes are recognised as assets, including any costs associated with bringing them into working condition. Property, plant & equipment do not include items purchased from programme expenditure to benefit overseas governments and others and where the intention is that ownership will fall to them.

Property, plant & equipment are capitalised above a threshold of £1,000 for individual assets. Items of office and domestic furniture and IT equipment, some of which may individually cost less than £1,000, are capitalised on a grouped basis. Assets under construction are capitalised on the basis of actual costs incurred during the period until the work is completed when the asset is deemed available for use and reclassified accordingly.

Non-current assets are valued at current replacement cost, which is deemed representative of fair value. Current replacement cost is updated quarterly based on monthly indices provided by the Office for National Statistics website. Any surplus on revaluation is recognised directly in the revaluation reserve, except to the extent that the surplus reverses a previous revaluation deficit on the same asset which was previously recognised in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure. In this circumstance the credit to that extent is recognised in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure. Any deficit on revaluation is recognised in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure, except to the extent that it reverses a previous revaluation surplus on the same asset, in which case it is taken directly to the revaluation reserve. 1.12 Depreciation

Freehold land is not depreciated. Depreciation is provided on other property, plant & equipment on a straight line basis over the remaining useful lives of the assets. Depreciation on assets under construction, including improvements to leaseholds, is provided from the point at which these come into use. The useful lives for main asset categories are as follows:

- Office accommodation (freeholds): 30 years
- Domestic property (freeholds): 20 years
- Improvements to freeholds: 15 years
- Leasehold related assets: Over the remaining term of the lease
- Motor vehicles: 5 years
- Furniture and equipment: Mainly at 5 and 10 years
- IT equipment: 1 to 8 years

1.13 Intangible assets

Intangible assets consist of Software licences and IT systems, and are valued at current replacement cost, which is deemed representative of fair value. Current replacement cost is updated quarterly based on monthly indices provided by the Office for National Statistics website. Any surplus on revaluation is recognised directly in the revaluation reserve, except to the extent that the surplus reverses a previous revaluation deficit on the same asset which was previously recognised in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure. In this circumstance the credit to that extent is recognised in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure. Any deficit on revaluation is recognised in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure, except to the extent that it reverses a previous revaluation surplus on the same asset, in which case it is taken directly to the revaluation reserve.

Amortisation is provided on a straight line basis as follows:

- Software licences: Over the life of the licence (1-8 years)
- IT systems: Over individually assessed estimated useful lives (1-8 years)

1.14 Investments

**International Financial Institutions (IFIs)**

Investments include the United Kingdom interest in certain International Financial Institutions (IFIs). Shares in these bodies are not traded securities. In accordance with accounting standards on financial instruments, these have been designated as ‘available for sale’ financial assets, as they cannot be classified under the other three categories of financial instruments specified in IAS 39.

These investments are recognised and subsequently measured at fair value. Given that DFID has no intention of withdrawing from membership of these organisations, fair value has been assessed as the amount that DFID would receive if the institutions ceased to operate. For all IFIs, this would be DFID’s share of the net assets of the IFI, based on shareholdings at the time of dissolution. It is considered that the net assets shown on the statement of financial position of each IFI, at the date closest to year end, adjusted for known changes in ownership, represents the best estimate of the net realisable value.

Increases in the value of investments, including those arising from translation to sterling of underlying values of foreign currency denominated investments or from market movements affecting the valuation, are taken to the revaluation reserve. Reductions in value are taken to revaluation reserve to the extent that value is no lower than that the carrying amount at initial recognition to the statement of financial position. Impairments below this cost are charged to the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure.

**Public Corporations**

In accordance with the FReM, investments in public corporations falling outside the resource accounting boundary are recognised at historic cost less any impairment. Impairments are assessed by comparing the historic cost to DFID’s share of net assets, as disclosed in the most recent audited financial statements of the public corporation. As explained in note 29.1 of the Accounts on page 186 DFID disposed of its 40% shareholding in Actis LLP on 30 April 2012. This disposal will be reflected as a 2012-13 transaction. DFID’s shareholding in Actis LLP at 31 March 2012 is classified as an Available for Sale current asset investment, within note 14 of the Accounts and within the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position.

1.15 Financial instruments

IFRS 7, *Financial Instruments: Disclosures* requires disclosures in the financial statements that enable users to evaluate the significance of financial instruments to the financial position and performance, and the nature and extent of risks arising from financial instruments to which DFID is exposed during the year and at the financial year end, and how those risks are managed.

Financial assets and liabilities are recognised when the Department becomes party to the contracts that give rise to them and conditions satisfying recognition are met. The Department determines the classification of financial assets and liabilities at initial recognition in line with the categories designated by IAS 39 as appropriate.

They are derecognised when the right to receive cash flows has expired or the Department has transferred substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership or control of the asset.

In order to gain greater budget certainty in relation to a particular programme DFID mitigates against potential falls in the value of sterling by taking out forward contracts where considered appropriate. The contracts are held in the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position at fair value, based on updated month end valuations. Gains or losses are recognised through the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Expenditure. DFID’s policy on forward purchase has been approved by HM Treasury.

1.16 Long term loans

In accordance with IAS 39, these have been classified as ‘loans and receivables’, and are therefore valued at amortised cost based on expected future cash flows, net of provisions. These provisions include amounts which the UK has formally agreed will not be repaid. Repayments forecast to be made within one year are included in current assets.

1.17 Leases

Where substantially all risks and rewards of ownership of a leased asset are borne by DFID, the asset is recorded as a non-current asset with a corresponding liability recorded representing the net present value of the payments obligation to the lessor. Net present value is calculated as the value of the minimum lease payments discounted by the interest rate implicit in the lease. The interest element of the finance lease payment is charged to the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure over the period of the lease at a constant rate in relation to the balance outstanding. Other leases are classed as operating leases and the rentals are charged to the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure over the term of the lease. No ownership rights are awarded therefore there are no assets or liabilities recorded within the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position.

1.18 Cash and cash equivalents

Cash comprises cash on hand with UK and overseas banks and demand deposits at the statement of financial position date. Cash equivalents comprise any assets considered by management to be readily convertible to cash, due to their highly liquid and short term nature, by way of a readily available market for sale.

1.19 Provisions

DFID provides for legal and constructive obligations which are of uncertain timing or amount at the reporting date on the basis of best estimate of the expenditure required to settle the obligation. Where the time value of money is material, provisions are stated at discounted amounts using the real discount rate, adjusted for inflation, set by HM Treasury.

1.20 Early retirement costs

DFID meets the additional costs of benefits, beyond the normal PCSPS benefits in respect of employees who retire early, by paying the required amounts annually to the PCSPS, over the period between early retirement and normal retirement date. These costs are provided in full as an expense in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure (within programme costs) when early retirements have been agreed and arrangements are binding. Liability for future payments is shown under provisions. Where the provision for employee exit costs is significant/material, the FReM requires that the cash flows are discounted. Amounts provided are neither significant nor material.

1.21 Contingent liabilities

In addition to contingent liabilities disclosed in accordance with IAS 37 the department discloses for parliamentary reporting and accountability purposes certain statutory and non-statutory contingent liabilities where the likelihood of a transfer of economic benefit is remote, but which have been reported to Parliament in accordance with the requirements of Managing Public Money.

Where the time value of money is material, contingent liabilities which are required to be disclosed under IAS 37 are stated at discounted amounts and the amount reported to Parliament separately noted. Contingent liabilities that are not required to be disclosed by IAS 37 are stated at the amounts reported to Parliament.

1.22 Third party assets

Cash balances in the primary statements exclude amounts held for third parties as custodian or trustee but in which neither DFID nor Government more generally has a direct beneficial interest. Amounts held, of this nature, at the statement of financial position date are disclosed by way of note 27 of the Accounts on page 185.

1.23 Impairment of financial assets

The Department assesses at each Consolidated Statement of Financial Position date whether there is objective evidence that financial assets are impaired as a result of events that occurred after the initial recognition of the asset and prior to the statement of financial position date. If such events have had an impact on the estimated future cash flows of the financial instrument they are impaired. For the purposes of a collective evaluation of impairment, financial assets are grouped on the basis of similar risk characteristics, taking into account the type of instrument and other relevant factors. These characteristics are relevant to the estimation of future cash flows for groups of such assets by being indicative of the counterparty’s ability to pay all amounts due according to the terms of the asset being evaluated.

The amount of impairment loss is measured as the difference between the asset’s carrying amount and the present value of estimated future cash flows. Future cash flows for a group of financial instruments that are collectively evaluated for impairment are estimated on the basis of expected cash flows for the assets and historical loss experience for assets with credit risk characteristics similar to those in the group.

1.24 Critical accounting judgements

The Accounting Officer, in preparing the Accounts, is required to select suitable accounting policies, apply them consistently and make estimates and assumptions that are reasonable and prudent. These judgments and estimates are based on historical experience and other factors considered to be relevant. Actual results may differ from these estimates and assumptions.

Critical accounting estimates are those which involve the most complex or subjective judgements or assessments. The areas of DFID’s business that typically require such estimates in implementing the accounting policies set out above are explained in more detail below.

(a) Useful lives of property, plant and equipment and intangible non-current assets

DFID’s management annually reviews and re-affirms the appropriateness of the useful lives of tangible and intangible assets for the purposes of applying depreciation.

(b) Impairment review of property, plant and equipment and intangible assets

Assets categorised as Land, Buildings and Dwellings, Leasehold Property and Assets under Construction are recorded as depreciated historic cost. All other assets are recorded as depreciated current cost. Indexation factors are obtained from the Office of National Statistics for those assets recorded at current cost. Each year DFID carries out a review of carrying value to assess indications of impairment. There were no significant changes to carrying values of assets during 2011-2012.

(c) Impairment review of financial assets

DFID carries out an annual impairment review of the carrying value of its financial assets. Details of this policy are set out in note 1.23 of the Accounting Policies.

(d) Provisions against long term loans and receivables

Long term loan balances are held with a number of overseas governments and organisations. DFID carries out an annual review to assess the expected amounts receivable against the carrying value of loans outstanding, giving consideration to factors affecting recoverability such as political matters (e.g. instability within the recipient country) or economic developments (e.g. progress towards debt reduction initiatives such as the “Paris Club” or the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative). Where there is likelihood that the full carrying value may not be received, a provision is made against the carrying value of the amount due and balances reported in the accounts to the extent that the outstanding amount will not be recovered. 1.25 Effects of future accounting policies

The following is a list of changes to IFRS that have been issued but which were not effective in the reporting period:

(a) New IFRS issued but not yet effective

IFRS 9 Financial Instruments was issued on 12 November 2009 and will be effective for financial reporting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2013. The new standard simplifies the classification and measurement of financial assets, previously reported under IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement, and will have a material effect on the disclosure of financial assets. The main changes will be:

- Categories of assets classed as Available for Sale, Held to Maturity and Loans and Receivables are eliminated.
- All assets are to be valued at fair value, unless the asset has contractual terms giving rise to cash flows on specified dates that are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal amount outstanding. In this instance the business model has an objective of holding assets in order to collect contractual cash flows and should be classified at amortised cost.
- Changes in the value of instruments measured at fair value are generally taken to profit or loss (i.e. the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure).

1.26 Operating segments

In accordance with IFRS 8 and the application set out within the FReM the disclosures required to comply are included in note 7 of the Accounts. IFRS 8 defines an operating segment as a component of an entity:

- That engages in business activities from which it earns revenues and incurs expenditure;
- Whose operating results are reviewed regularly by the entity’s decision makers to make decisions about resources to be allocated to the segment and assess its performance and;
- For which discrete financial information is available.

DFID is structured by way of a number of divisions who are individually, and collectively, responsible for delivering DFID’s expected output and objectives. Divisions report through a Director to a Director General, who is a member of the Management Board. Budgets and resources are allocated to divisions based on operational plans, reviewed and signed off, firstly by the responsible Director then ultimately by the responsible Director General. The monthly finance report is a standing item on the Management Board agenda. The monthly finance report aggregates financial data for all divisions but also summarises financial performance, both past and forecast, by Director General area. As such these are considered the most appropriate operating segments for disclosure at note 7 of the Accounts on page 151. The income and expenditure for each operating segment is disclosed here and reconciles with the total income and expenditure, as set out in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure.

During 2011-12 the number of Director General’s was increased from three to four. The comparative within Note 7 of the Accounts on page 151 has not been restated as this was a new basis and information in this format was not available during the previous period.

1.27 Changes in accounting policies

The financial statements have been restated to comply with the requirements to consolidate the income and expenditure of the core department’s NDPBs. The Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Net Expenditure, Consolidated Statement of Changes in Taxpayers’ Equity and all supporting notes have been restated to reflect this change. The impact of these is summarised in note 2 of the Accounts.

DFID’s accounting policy on Financial Instruments (1.15) has been revised to ensure full compliance with IAS 39, in relation to its policy on accounting for forward contracts. No restatement is required.

2. Prior year adjustments

2.1 Grant in Aid to NDPBs

Under Clear Line of Sight an amendment was made to the FReM to show movement of departmental financing of NDPBs. This meant including a line in operating costs to show the grant in aid financing of NDPBs.

This change has resulted in restating the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure for 2010-11, included within these year end accounts. An analysis of the changes can be found below:

| Published DFID at 31 March 2011 £000 | Adjustment for CSC Grant-in-Aid from DFID £000 | Restated DFID at 1 April 2011 £000 | Adjustment for CSC £000 | DFID Group at 1 April 2011 £000 | |--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-------------------------|--------------------------------| | Administration cost | | | | | | Staff costs | 76,707 | – | 76,707 | – | | Other costs | 77,472 | – | 77,472 | 1,583 | 79,055 | | Income | (5,977) | (93) | (6,070) | 93 | (5,977) | | Programme expenditure | | | | | | Staff costs | 35,569 | – | 35,569 | – | | Other costs | 6,925,612 | (17,382) | 6,908,230 | 15,799 | 6,924,029 | | Income | (5,716) | (926) | (6,642) | 926 | (5,716) | | Grant in Aid to NDPBs | | | | | | Administration Grant-in-Aid | – | 1,676 | 1,676 | (1,676) | – | | Programme Grant-in-Aid | – | 16,725 | 16,725 | (16,725) | – | | Net Operating Cost for the year | 7,103,667 | – | 7,103,667 | – | 7,103,667 |

The changes relate to separating out the grant in aid funding to support the Income and Expenditure reported by our executive NDPB, CSC, which is required under the revised format of the FReM to be consolidated into the Departmental Group.

DFID provided grant-in-aid income to CSC of £17,382k in 2010-11.

CSC also received £1,019k of grant-in-aid from other government departments, which is required to be recognised in DFID and Departmental Group’s income.

Note 28 shows a breakdown of this spend.

### 3. Net outturn

#### 3.1 Analysis of net resource outturn by section

| Section Description | 2011-12 | Restated 2010-11 Outturn | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|--------------------------| | | Administration | Programme | Total | Net Total | Estimate | Total | | | Gross Income | Net | Gross Income | Net | Total | Net Total | Estimate | Total | | Spending in Departmental Expenditure Limit | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | | Voted: | | | | | | | | | | A: CSC (NDPB) scholarships relating to developing countries | 1,942 | – | 1,942 | – | 16,247 | 16,247 | 18,189 | 19,111 | | B: Wealth Creation | – | – | – | – | 421,234 | 421,231 | 421,231 | 514,441 | | C: Climate Change | – | – | – | – | 157,834 | 157,831 | 157,831 | 237,547 | | D: Governance and Security | – | – | – | – | 720,294 | 720,291 | 720,291 | 673,796 | | E: Direct Delivery of Millennium Development Goals | – | – | – | – | 2,183,444 | 2,183,444 | 2,183,444 | 3,063,497 | | F: Global Partnerships | – | – | – | – | 1,529,643 | 1,529,331 | 1,529,331 | 576,247 | | G: Total Operating Costs | 127,475 | (6,486) | 120,989 | 87,290 | 86,955 | 207,944 | 221,200 | 13,256 | | H: Central Programmes | – | – | – | – | (11,850) | (1,278) | (13,128) | 12,770 | | I: Joint Conflict Pool | – | – | – | – | 21,570 | 21,570 | 21,570 | 19,420 | | J: Independent Commission for Aid Impact (NDPB) (net) | 303 | 303 | 1,813 | 1,813 | 2,116 | 2,635 | 519 | – | | K: CSC (NDPB) (net) scholarships relating to developed countries | 111 | 111 | 477 | 477 | 588 | 630 | 42 | 1,019 | | Non-Voted | | | | | | | | | | L: European Union Attributed Aid | – | – | – | – | 934,125 | 934,125 | 934,125 | 867,900 | | Annually Managed Expenditure | | | | | | | | | | Voted | | | | | | | | | | M: Wealth Creation | – | – | – | – | (2,723) | (2,723) | (2,723) | (2,705) | | N: Direct Delivery of Millennium Development Goals | – | – | – | – | 41,052 | 41,052 | 41,052 | 182,253 | | O: Total Operating Costs | – | – | – | – | (3,927) | (3,927) | (3,927) | (3,528) | | P: Central Programmes | – | – | – | – | 9,558 | 9,558 | 9,558 | 35,011 | | Total | 129,831 | (6,486) | 123,345 | 6,106,081 | (1,934) | 6,104,147 | 6,227,492 | 6,420,225 |

Chapter 5: Accounts: Department for International Development

### 3. Net outturn (continued)

#### 3.2 Analysis of net capital outturn by section

| | 2011-12 Outturn | Restated 2010-11 Outturn | Net total compared with Estimate | Net | |----------------------|-----------------|--------------------------|----------------------------------|-----| | | Gross | Income | Net | Net | Estimate | Net | | Spending in Departmental Expenditure Limit | | | | | | | | Voted: | | | | | | | | A: CSC (NDPB) scholarships relating to developing countries | – | – | – | – | – | – | | B: Wealth Creation | 127,995 | – | 127,995 | 97,472 | (30,523) | 116,766 | | C: Climate Change | 67,084 | – | 67,084 | 46,605 | (20,479) | 57,969 | | D: Governance and Security | 18,508 | – | 18,508 | 27,290 | 8,782 | 80,751 | | E: Direct Delivery of Millennium Development Goals | 117,353 | – | 117,353 | 235,961 | 118,608 | 177,521 | | F: Global Partnerships | 1,323,535 | – | 1,323,535 | 1,242,777 | (80,758) | 1,136,564 | | G: Total Operating Costs | – | – | – | – | – | – | | H: Central Programmes | 17,314 | (25,882) | (8,568) | 8,000 | 16,568 | (10,875) | | I: Joint Conflict Pool | – | – | – | – | – | – | | J: Independent Commission for Aid Impact (NDPB) (net) | – | – | – | – | – | – | | K: CSC (NDPB) (net) scholarships relating to developed countries | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Non-Voted | | | | | | | | L: European Union Attributed Aid | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Annually Managed Expenditure | | | | | | | | Voted | | | | | | | | M: Wealth Creation | – | – | – | – | – | – | | N: Direct Delivery of Millennium Development Goals | – | – | – | – | – | – | | O: Total Operating Costs | – | – | – | – | – | – | | P: Central Programmes | – | – | – | (1,600) | (1,600) | – | | **Total** | 1,671,789 | (25,882) | 1,645,907 | 1,656,505 | 10,598 | 1,558,696 | 4. Reconciliation of outturn to net operating cost and against Administration Budget

4.1 Reconciliation of net resource outturn to net operating cost

| | 2011-12 £000 | 2010-11 £000 | |--------------------------------|--------------|--------------| | Total resource outturn in Statement of Parliamentary Supply | 6,227,492 | 6,179,361 | | Less: Income payable to the Consolidated Fund | (332) | (220) | | Capital Grants | 1,624,534 | 1,769,571 | | Non-voted[1] EU attribution | (934,125) | (845,045) | | | 690,077 | 924,306 | | Net Operating Costs in Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure | 6,917,569 | 7,103,667 |

[1] Non-voted represents EU attribution – in line with FReM rules on activities charged directly, the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure does not include amounts attributed to DFID to reflect spending on development activities by the European community from their budget. HM Treasury regulations do, however, require this expenditure to be included as budget outturn and as such it is incorporated within the Statement of Parliamentary Supply as non-voted resource outturn.

4.2 Outturn against final Administration Budget and Administration net operating cost

| Note | 2011-12 £000 | 2010-11 £000 | |-------------------------------------|--------------|--------------| | Estimate – Administration costs limit | 138,212 | 157,986 | | Outturn – Gross Administration Costs | 129,831 | 155,762 | | Outturn – Gross Income relating to administration Costs | 11 (6,486) | (5,977) | | Outturn – Net administration costs | 9 123,345 | 149,785 | | Reconciliation to operating costs: | | | | Less: Provisions utilised | 9 (3,927) | (2,743) | | Administration Net Operating Costs | 119,418 | 147,042 | 5. Reconciliation of net cash requirement to increase/(decrease) in cash

| | 2011-12 £000 | 2010-11 £000 | |--------------------------------------|--------------|--------------| | Net cash requirement – core department and agencies | (6,459,227) | (6,093,191) | | From the Consolidated Fund (Supply) – current year | 6,449,350 | 6,077,190 | | From the Consolidated Fund (Supply) – prior year | 16,001 | 25,496 | | Amounts due to the Consolidated Fund received in prior year and paid over | 7,923 | (104) | | Increase/(decrease) in cash held by core department and agencies | 14,047 | 9,391 | | Increase/(decrease) in cash held by NDPB | 1,532 | – | | Increase/(decrease) in cash held by core department, agencies and NDPBs | 15,579 | 9,391 |

6. Analysis of income payable to the Consolidated Fund

In addition to income retained by the department, the following income relates to the department and is payable to the Consolidated Fund (cash receipts being shown in italics)

| | Outturn 2011-12 | Outturn 2010-11 | |--------------------------------------|-----------------|-----------------| | | Income £000 | Receipts £000 | | Operating income outside the ambit of the Estimate | (9,211) | (9,211) | | Total income payable to the Consolidated Fund | (9,211) | (9,211) | 7. Statement of operating costs by operating segment

In accordance with IFRS 8 there is a requirement to show income and expenditure by operating segment. IFRS 8 also includes a requirement to show net assets per operating segment. The structure of DFID means that all assets included in the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position are used for the general administration and benefit of DFID as a whole. As such DFID consider the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position to be centrally maintained and monitored by Finance and Corporate Performance Department and would therefore all fall under the reporting line of the Director General for Corporate Performance.

The Director Generals were re-aligned in 2011-12 and moved from four Director General headings to five. As this was a new basis for 2011-12, comparatives are not available for 2010-11 and therefore the table for 2010-11 below has not been restated for these changes.

For the year ended 31 March 2012

| Director General | Division | Gross Expenditure | Income | Net Expenditure | |------------------|----------|-------------------|--------|-----------------| | Finance & Corporate Performance | Central Department Division | 12,349 | (2,468) | 9,881 | | | Corporate Hub | 3,056 | – | 3,056 | | | Business Solutions Division Level | 11,118 | – | 11,118 | | | Finance and Corporate Performance Division | 15,012 | (50) | 14,962 | | | Human Resources, Security & Facilities Division | 28,101 | (6,348) | 21,753 | | | Communications Division | 22,787 | – | 22,787 | | | Internal Audit | 1,449 | – | 1,449 | | Finance & Corporate Performance | 93,872 | (8,866) | 85,006 | | Permanent Secretary | Top Management Group | 3,850 | – | 3,850 | | Permanent Secretary | 3,850 | – | 3,850 | | Policy & Global Programmes | International Finance Division | 1,832,299 | (249) | 1,832,050 | | | Policy Division | 576,832 | – | 576,832 | | | International Relations Division | 736,624 | – | 736,624 | | | Research and Evidence Division | 255,664 | – | 255,664 | | | Joint Trade Policy Division | 7,597 | – | 7,597 | | Policy & Global Programmes | 3,409,016 | (249) | 3,408,767 | | Country Programmes | Asia, Caribbean and Overseas Territories | 761,739 | (27) | 761,712 | | | East and Central Africa | 1,024,050 | (4) | 1,024,046 | | | West and Southern Africa | 816,202 | (102) | 816,100 | | Country Programmes | 2,601,991 | (133) | 2,601,858 | | Humanitarian, Security & Conflict | Security & Humanitarian and Middle East Division | 403,859 | – | 403,859 | | | Western Asia and Stabilisation Division | 415,047 | (52) | 414,995 | | Humanitarian, Security & Conflict | 818,906 | (52) | 818,854 | | Total | 6,927,635 | (9,300) | 6,918,335 |

### 7. Statement of operating costs by operating segment (continued)

For the year ended 31 March 2011

| Director General | Division | Gross Expenditure | Income | Net Expenditure | |------------------|-----------------------------------------------|-------------------|---------|-----------------| | Corporate Performance | Central Department Division | 7,237 | (4,534) | 2,703 | | | Corporate Hub | 1,110 | – | 1,110 | | | Business Solutions Division Level | 19,493 | – | 19,493 | | | Finance and Corporate Performance Division | 18,167 | – | 18,167 | | | Human Resources, Security & Facilities Division| 30,256 | (5,287) | 24,969 | | | Communications Division | 38,679 | – | 38,679 | | | Internal Audit | 1,350 | – | 1,350 | | | Corporate Performance | 116,292 | (9,821) | 106,471 | | Permanent Secretary | Top Management Group | 3,820 | – | 3,820 | | | Permanent Secretary | 3,820 | – | 3,820 | | Policy & International | International Finance Division | 1,999,147 | (247) | 1,998,900 | | | Policy Division | 620,105 | (76) | 620,029 | | | International Relations Division | 709,003 | – | 709,003 | | | Research and Evidence Division | 236,621 | – | 236,621 | | | Joint Trade Policy Division | 209,687 | – | 209,687 | | | Policy & International | 3,774,563 | (323) | 3,774,240 | | Regional Programmes | Asia Division | 677,558 | (173) | 677,385 | | | Security & Humanitarian, Middle East, Caribbean & Overseas Territories Division | 482,686 | (522) | 482,164 | | | West and Southern Africa | 822,376 | (155) | 822,221 | | | East and Central Africa | 916,890 | (4) | 916,886 | | | Western Asia and Stabilisation Division | 321,175 | (695) | 320,480 | | | Regional Programmes | 3,220,685 | (1,549) | 3,219,136 | | | TOTAL | 7,115,360 | (11,693)| 7,103,667 | 8. Staff numbers and related costs

Staff costs comprise:

| | 2011-12 £000 | 2010-11 £000 | |--------------------------------|--------------|--------------| | **Wages and salaries** | 94,913 | 93,478 | | **Social security costs** | 5,493 | 5,472 | | **Other pension costs** | 15,848 | 15,827 | | **Sub-Total** | 116,254 | 114,777 | | **Less recoveries in respect of** | (227) | (227) | | **outward secondments** | | | | **Total net costs** | 116,027 | 114,550 |

| Analysis of Sub-Total | 2011-12 | 2010-11 | |--------------------------------|--------------|--------------| | Administration | 61,002 | 76,707 | | Programme | 53,325 | 35,569 | | Capital | 1,927 | 1,972 | | **Total** | 116,254 | 114,248 |

All Staff relate to the Core department and ICAI only. CSC does not have any staff as they use administrators to carry out their day-to-day operations.

The Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS) is an unfunded multi-employer defined benefit scheme. DFID is unable to identify its share of the underlying assets and liabilities. A full actuarial valuation was carried out as at 31 March 2007. Details can be found in the accounts of the Cabinet Office: Civil Superannuation (www.civilservice-pensions.gov.uk).

For 2011-12, employers’ contributions of £15,123,084.12 were payable to the PCSPS (2010-11 £14,575,250.20) at one of four rates in the range 16.7% to 24.3% of pensionable pay, based on salary bands. The Scheme’s Actuary reviews employer contributions every four years following a full scheme valuation. The contribution rates are set to meet the cost of the benefits accruing during 2011-12 to be paid when the member retires and not the benefits paid during this period to existing pensioners.

Employees can opt to open a partnership pension account, a stakeholder pension with an employer contribution. Employers’ contributions of £126,454.76 (2010-11: £165,252.36) were paid to one or more of a panel of three appointed stakeholder pension providers. Employer contributions are age-related and range from 3% to 12.5% of pensionable pay. Employers also match employee contributions up to 3% of pensionable pay. In addition, employer contributions of £9,778.45 (2010-11: £12,156.90), 0.8% of pensionable pay, were payable to the PCSPS to cover the cost of the future provision of lump sum benefits on death in service and ill health retirement of these employees. Contributions due to the partnership pension providers at the Statement of Financial Position date were £nil. Contributions prepaid at that date were £nil.

5 individuals retired early on ill-health grounds (2010-11: 1 individual); the total additional accrued pension liabilities in the year amounted to £9,760 (2010-11: £1,531). 8. Staff numbers and related costs (continued)

Average number of persons employed

The average number of whole-time equivalent persons employed during the year was as follows. These relate to the core department only.

| Division | 2011-12 | 2010-11 | |-----------------------------------------------|---------|---------| | | Number | Number | | | Total | Total | | | Permanently employed staff | Others | Ministers | Special advisers | Total | | Corporate Performance | 512 | 507 | 5 | – | – | 571 | | Permanent Secretary | 45 | 37 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 46 | | International Finance Division | 67 | 65 | 2 | – | – | 71 | | Policy and Research | | | | | | | | Directorate | 321 | 311 | 10 | – | – | 273 | | International Relations Division | 97 | 95 | 2 | – | – | 115 | | Asia Division | 355 | 353 | 2 | – | – | 325 | | Security and Humanitarian, Middle East, Caribbean, Overseas Territories | 145 | 142 | 3 | – | – | 162 | | West and Southern Africa | 387 | 386 | 1 | – | – | 369 | | East and Central Africa | 341 | 341 | – | – | – | 277 | | Western Asia and Stabilisation Division | 179 | 176 | 3 | – | – | 163 | | Total | 2,449 | 2,413 | 31 | 3 | 2 | 2,372 |

8.1 Reporting of Civil Service and other compensation schemes – exit packages

| Exit package cost band | 2011-12 Departmental Group | 2010-11 Departmental Group | |------------------------|----------------------------|----------------------------| | | Number of compulsory redundancies | Number of other departures agreed | Total number of exit packages by cost band | Number of compulsory redundancies | Number of other departures agreed | Total number of exit packages by cost band | | \<£10,000 | – | 1 | 1 | – | 1 | 1 | | £10,000 – £25,000 | 1 | 16 | 17 | – | 4 | 4 | | £25,000 – £50,000 | – | 25 | 25 | – | 10 | 10 | | £50,000 – £100,000 | – | 20 | 20 | – | 12 | 12 | | £100,00 – £150,000 | – | 5 | 5 | – | 10 | 10 | | £150,00 – £200,000 | – | 2 | 2 | – | – | – | | £200,000+ | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Total number of exit packages | 1 | 69 | 70 | – | 37 | 37 |

Total cost £000 3,497 2,672

All exit packages above relate to DFID.

Redundancy and other departure costs have been paid in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Compensation Scheme, a statutory scheme made under the Superannuation Act 1972. Exit costs are accounted for in full in the year of departure. Where the department has agreed early retirements, the additional costs are met by the department and not by the Civil Service pension scheme. Ill-health retirement costs are met by the pension scheme and are not included in the table.

### 9. Other administration costs

| Note | 2011-12 | 2010-11 | |------|---------|---------| | | DFID £000 | Departmental Group £000 | DFID £000 | Departmental Group £000 | | Rentals under operating leases | 16,297 | 16,297 | 15,390 | 15,390 | | Charges under finance leases | 8,972 | 8,972 | 8,944 | 8,944 | | **Total** | **25,269** | **25,269** | **24,334** | **24,334** | | Other current expenditure | 28,223 | 30,322 | 37,143 | 38,726 | | Non-cash items | | | | | | Depreciation: property, plant and equipment | 12 | 8,342 | 8,342 | 10,535 | 10,535 | | Amortisation: intangible assets | 13 | 4,800 | 4,800 | 7,503 | 7,503 | | Impairment of IT equipment | 12 | – | – | 472 | 472 | | (Revaluation) of Furniture and equipment | 12 | (44) | (44) | (770) | (770) | | Loss on disposal of property, plant and equipment | 15 | 3,873 | 3,873 | 1,288 | 1,288 | | (Gain) on disposal of intangibles | 13 | (34) | (34) | – | – | | Auditors’ remuneration and expenses[1] | 265 | 265 | 265 | 265 | | (Revaluation)/impairment of investments (Actis) | 14 | (37) | (37) | (555) | (555) | | Movement in provisions | (3,927) | (3,927) | (2,743) | (2,743) | | **Total** | **66,730** | **68,829** | **77,472** | **79,055** | | Staff costs | 8 | 61,002 | 61,002 | 76,707 | 76,707 | | Grant in Aid | 28 | 2,144 | – | 1,676 | – | | Administration income | 11 | (6,486) | (6,486) | (6,070) | (5,977) | | **Total** | **123,390** | **123,345** | **149,785** | **149,785** |

[1] In addition, NAO received cash fees indirectly from DFID, via other organisations to which it is a sub-contractor. Indirect fees totalled £128,000 in 2011-12 (2010-11 £120,000). Cash fees directly received from DFID during 2011-12 was £nil (2010-11 £192,000).

### 10. Programme expenditure

| Note | 2011-12 | 2010-11 | |------|---------|---------| | | DFID £000 | Departmental Group £000 | DFID £000 | Departmental Group £000 | | Grants and current expenditure | 5,273,090 | 5,289,143 | 4,808,065 | 4,823,864 | | Contributions to international financial institutions: promissory notes | 1,412,385 | 1,412,385 | 1,828,091 | 1,828,091 | | Loss on foreign exchange | 12,748 | 12,748 | 15,528 | 15,528 | | Non-cash items | | | | | Movements in provisions | 28,812 | 28,812 | 256,546 | 256,546 | | | 6,727,035 | 6,743,088 | 6,908,230 | 6,924,029 | | Staff costs | 53,325 | 53,325 | 35,569 | 35,569 | | Grant in Aid | 17,399 | – | 16,725 | – | | Programme income | (2,814) | (2,189) | (6,642) | (5,716) | | **Total net programme costs** | 6,794,945 | 6,794,224 | 6,953,882 | 6,953,882 |

### 11. Income

| | 2011-12 | 2010-11 | |------|---------|---------| | | DFID £000 | Departmental Group £000 | DFID £000 | Departmental Group £000 | | Administrative Income | | | | | Rents from non-Government bodies | (5,044) | (5,044) | (4,923) | (4,923) | | Other | (1,359) | (1,359) | (1,059) | (966) | | Recovery of salary – EBRD Director | (83) | (83) | (88) | (88) | | **Sub-total** | (6,486) | (6,486) | (6,070) | (5,977) | | Programme Income | | | | | Non-capital operating income | (956) | (956) | (577) | (577) | | Other operating income | (878) | (253) | (1,131) | (205) | | Loan interest | (980) | (980) | (4,934) | (4,934) | | **Sub-total** | (2,814) | (2,189) | (6,642) | (5,716) | | **Total** | (9,300) | (8,675) | (12,712) | (11,693) |

## 12. Property, plant and equipment

### Consolidated 2011-12

| | Land, buildings and dwellings £000 | Leasehold related assets £000 | Vehicles £000 | Furniture and equipment £000 | IT equipment £000 | Assets under construction £000 | Total £000 | |----------------------|------------------------------------|-------------------------------|--------------|-------------------------------|------------------|-------------------------------|------------| | **Cost or valuation**| | | | | | | | | At 1 April 2011 | 18,116 | 68,055 | 6,383 | 18,299 | 15,568 | 7,601 | 134,022 | | Additions | | 847 | 397 | 1,052 | 153 | 8,120 | 10,569 | | Revaluation | (1,375) | 75 | 65 | 78 | (7) | | (1,164) | | Brought into use/reclassifications | 4,006 | (4,181) | 77 | (156) | 182 | (967) | (1,039) | | Disposals | (712) | (2,514) | (213) | (917) | (214) | (812) | (5,382) | | **At 31 March 2012** | 20,035 | 62,282 | 6,709 | 18,356 | 15,682 | 13,942 | 137,006 | | **Depreciation** | | | | | | | | | At 1 April 2011 | (1,418) | (22,958) | (4,128) | (9,483) | (8,953) | | (46,940) | | Charged in year | (889) | (2,704) | (852) | (1,508) | (2,389) | | (8,342) | | Depreciation on revaluation | 323 | (25) | (32) | (34) | 7 | | 239 | | Reclassifications | (7) | (23) | | 85 | (361) | | (306) | | Disposals | 50 | 568 | 182 | 518 | 191 | | 1,509 | | **At 31 March 2012** | (1,941) | (25,142) | (4,830) | (10,422) | (11,505) | | (53,840) | | **Carrying amount at 31 March 2012** | 18,094 | 37,140 | 1,879 | 7,934 | 4,177 | 13,942 | 83,166 | | **Carrying amount at 31 March 2011** | 16,701 | 45,095 | 2,256 | 8,815 | 6,617 | 7,601 | 87,085 | | **Asset financing:** | | | | | | | | | Owned | 18,094 | 19 | 1,879 | 7,934 | 4,177 | 13,942 | 46,045 | | Finance-Leased | | 37,121 | | | | | 37,121 | | **Carrying amount at 31 March 2012** | 18,094 | 37,140 | 1,879 | 7,934 | 4,177 | 13,942 | 83,166 |

Additions (accruals basis) 10,569 Movement in Capital payable (1,553) As shown in Cash flow 9,016

The above relates to assets held by DFID. CSC and ICAI do not hold any assets.

The department’s freehold property in East Kilbride was valued at 31 March 2011 by GVA Grimley LLP International Property Advisers using RICS guidelines and reported a revised existing use valuation of £6,200,000 (land £1,240,000, buildings £4,960,000).

Overseas properties were valued during 2011-12 and were as follows:

Zambia properties were revalued at 13 February 2012 by Pam Golding properties; Zimbabwe properties were revalued at 6 February 2012 by SEEF Properties; Uganda property was valued at 17 January 2012 by Eastlands Agency Real Estate; Malawi properties were valued at 9 March 2012 by MPICO Limited; Pakistan property was valued at 22 February 2012 by W W Engineering Services (Pvt) Ltd; Ethiopia property was valued at 31 January 2012 by CPMS.

Of which, a gain of £2,193,775 was taken to the revaluation reserve, being upward valuations of certain properties; and a loss of £3,244,672 was taken to the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure as impairments.

Included in leasehold related assets is a property held under a finance lease. This property was valued at 31 March 2008 by DTZ Debenham Tie Leung Limited using RICS guidelines. The finance lease was undertaken by a former Executive Agency of the Department but is now sublet through an operating lease to the University of Greenwich who occupy the building and took on the work of this Agency.

Following indexation movements over the course of the year by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), there was a gain in valuation for motor vehicles of £32,942 on the net current cost valuation. This gain was taken to the revaluation reserve (loss in 2011 of £27,000 taken to revaluation reserve). There was a gain in valuation for furniture and equipment on the net current cost valuation of £43,927, which was taken to the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure (2011: £770,000). There was a gain in value of £79 of IT Equipment, which was taken to the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure (loss in 2011 of £472,000 taken to Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure).

### 12. Property, plant and equipment (continued)

#### Consolidated 2010-11

| | Land, buildings and dwellings | Leasehold related assets | Vehicles | Furniture and equipment | IT equipment | Assets under construction | Total | |----------------------|------------------------------|--------------------------|----------|-------------------------|--------------|---------------------------|-------| | | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | | **Cost or valuation** | | | | | | | | | At 1 April 2010 | 18,181 | 65,565 | 6,644 | 17,116 | 26,486 | 8,775 | 142,767 | | Additions | 122 | 2,695 | 694 | 1,501 | 405 | 2,713 | 8,130 | | Revaluation | (3,052) | – | (57) | 1,532 | (1,119) | – | (2,696) | | Brought into use/reclassifications | 3,329 | 10 | – | – | (1,316) | (3,152) | (1,129) | | Disposals | (462) | (214) | (898) | (1,850) | (8,887) | (735) | (13,046) | | **At 31 March 2011** | 18,118 | 68,056 | 6,383 | 18,299 | 15,569 | 7,601 | 134,026 | | **Depreciation** | | | | | | | | | At 1 April 2010 | (2,919) | (19,716) | (3,896) | (8,231) | (15,281) | – | (50,043) | | Charged in year | (968) | (3,504) | (1,002) | (1,712) | (3,349) | – | (10,535) | | Depreciation on revaluation | 2,009 | – | 30 | (762) | 647 | – | 1,924 | | Reclassifications | – | 142 | – | (12) | 170 | – | 300 | | Disposals | 461 | 117 | 741 | 1,233 | 8,861 | – | 11,413 | | **At 31 March 2011** | (1,417) | (22,961) | (4,127) | (9,484) | (8,952) | – | (46,941) | | **Carrying amount at 31 March 2011** | 16,701 | 45,095 | 2,256 | 8,815 | 6,617 | 7,601 | 87,085 | | **Carrying amount at 1 April 2010** | 15,262 | 45,849 | 2,748 | 8,885 | 11,205 | 8,775 | 92,724 | | **Asset financing:** | | | | | | | | | Owned | 16,701 | 26,095 | 2,256 | 8,815 | 6,617 | 7,601 | 68,085 | | Finance-Leased | – | 19,000 | – | – | – | – | 19,000 | | **Carrying amount at 31 March 2011** | 16,701 | 45,095 | 2,256 | 8,815 | 6,617 | 7,601 | 87,085 |

Additions (accruals basis) 8,130 Movement in Capital payable 1,417 As shown in Cash flow 9,547

### 13. Intangible assets

#### Consolidated 2011-12

| | Software licences and IT systems £000 | Intangible Assets under construction £000 | 2011-12 Total £000 | |----------------------|---------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|---------------------| | **Cost or valuation**| | | | | At 1 April 2011 | 38,140 | 3,769 | 41,909 | | Additions | 123 | 2,772 | 2,895 | | Impairment/Revaluation | 73 | – | 73 | | Brought into use/reclassifications | 217 | 824 | 1,041 | | Disposals | (125) | – | (125) | | **At 31 March 2012** | **38,428** | **7,365** | **45,793** |

#### Amortisation

| | Software licences and IT systems £000 | Intangible Assets under construction £000 | 2011-12 Total £000 | |----------------------|---------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|---------------------| | At 1 April 2011 | (20,042) | – | (20,042) | | Charged in year | (4,800) | – | (4,800) | | Depreciation on revaluation | (36) | – | (36) | | Brought into use/reclassification | 306 | – | 306 | | Disposals | 159 | – | 159 | | **At 31 March 2012** | **(24,413)** | – | **(24,413)** |

#### Carrying amount at 31 March 2012

| | Software licences and IT systems £000 | Intangible Assets under construction £000 | 2011-12 Total £000 | |----------------------|---------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|---------------------| | **Carrying amount at 31 March 2012** | **14,015** | **7,365** | **21,380** |

#### Carrying amount at 31 March 2011

| | Software licences and IT systems £000 | Intangible Assets under construction £000 | 2011-12 Total £000 | |----------------------|---------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|---------------------| | **Carrying amount at 31 March 2011** | **18,098** | **3,769** | **21,867** |

#### Asset financing:

| | Software licences and IT systems £000 | Intangible Assets under construction £000 | 2011-12 Total £000 | |----------------------|---------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|---------------------| | Owned | 14,015 | 7,365 | 21,380 | | Finance-Leased | – | – | – | | **Carrying amount at 31 March 2012** | **14,015** | **7,365** | **21,380** |

The above relates to assets held by DFID. CSC and ICAI do not hold any assets. 13. Intangible assets (continued)

Following indexation movements over the course of the year, there was a gain on revaluation of £37,586 for software, licenses and IT systems, which was taken to the revaluation reserve (£1,106,000 in 2010-11).

| Consolidated 2010-11 | Software licences and IT systems £000 | Intangible Assets under construction £000 | 2010-11 Total £000 | |----------------------|--------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|-------------------| | **Cost** | | | | | At 1 April 2010 | 54,710 | 1,222 | 55,932 | | Additions | 2,502 | 2,547 | 5,049 | | Impairment / Revaluation | (2,469) | – | (2,469) | | Brought into use / reclassifications | 1,130 | – | 1,130 | | Disposals | (17,733) | – | (17,733) | | **At 31 March 2011** | 38,140 | 3,769 | 41,909 |

| **Amortisation** | | | | | At 1 April 2010 | (31,330) | – | (31,330) | | Charged in year | (7,503) | – | (7,503) | | Depreciation on revaluation | 1,363 | – | 1,363 | | Brought into use/reclassification | (300) | – | (300) | | Disposals | 17,728 | – | 17,728 | | **At 31 March 2011** | (20,042) | – | (20,042) |

| **Carrying amount at 31 March 2011** | 18,098 | 3,769 | 21,867 | | **Carrying amount at 31 March 2010** | 23,380 | 1,222 | 24,602 |

**Asset financing:**

| Owned | 18,098 | 3,769 | 21,867 | | Finance-Leased | – | – | – |

| **Carrying amount at 31 March 2011** | 18,098 | 3,769 | 21,867 | 14. Financial instruments

14.1 Non-current financial assets – equity investments

| | International Financial Institutions £000 | CDC Group Plc £000 | Actis LLP £000 | Total £000 | |----------------------|-------------------------------------------|-------------------|---------------|------------| | At 1 April 2010 | 3,047,533 | 765,036 | 1,086 | 3,813,655 | | Additions | 5,756 | – | – | 5,756 | | Revaluations | 47,245 | – | 555 | 47,800 | | At 1 April 2011 | 3,100,534 | 765,036 | 1,641 | 3,867,211 | | Additions | 30,544 | – | – | 30,544 | | Revaluations | 152,750 | – | – | 152,750 | | Reclassification in year to current | (1,641) | (1,641) | (1,641) | | At 31 March 2012 | 3,283,828 | 765,036 | – | 4,048,864 |

Current Financial Assets

| | Actis LLP £000 | Total £000 | |----------------------|---------------|------------| | At 1 April 2011 | – | – | | Additions | – | – | | Reclassification in year from non-current | 1,641 | 1,641 | | Revaluations | 37 | 37 | | At 31 March 2012 | 1,678 | 1,678 |

The above relates to assets held by DFID. CSC and ICAI do not hold any assets.

Subsidiaries and associates: key data from last audited financial statements

| | 31 December 2011 £m’s | Restated 31 December 2010 £m’s | |----------------------|-----------------------|--------------------------------| | CDC Group plc – Ordinary shares | | | | Portfolio return (before tax) | (66.3) | 258.5 | | Total return after tax | (72.0) | 268.7 | | Total net assets (valuation basis) | 2608.2 | 2803.5 |

| | US $bn’s | US $bn’s | |----------------------|----------|----------| | Actis LLP – Members capital | | | | Funds under management | 4.5 | 4.6 |

| | $m’s | $m’s | |----------------------|------|------| | Profit for the financial year available for division among Members | 4.6 | 10.6 | | Total net assets | 4.7 | 6.6 | 14. Financial instruments (continued)

14.1 Non-current financial assets – equity investments (continued)

All investments in IFIs are classified as ‘available for sale’ financial assets, as they do not meet the criteria for the other categories of financial assets specified in IAS 39. There is currently no intention to sell any of the investments shown above other than those classified within Current Financial Assets.

Public Sector Bodies

DFID, on behalf of the Government, owns 100% of the issued ordinary share capital of CDC Group plc. In 2004, fund management activities previously carried out by CDC were transferred to a newly formed limited liability partnership (Actis LLP). As a result DFID, on behalf of the Government, owned 40% of the members capital of Actis LLP.

In accordance with the FReM, investments in public corporations falling outside the resource accounting boundary, such as CDC and Actis LLP, are recognised at historical cost less any impairment. Impairments are assessed by comparing the historic cost to DFID’s share of net assets, with any impairment being taken to the statement of comprehensive net expenditure.

HMT further requires that self financing public corporations achieve a rate of return, described as ‘cost of capital’ to ensure that the opportunity cost of departments’ investments is covered. If the corporation does not meet its rate of return over each CSR period, then the shareholding department may face a further charge to the extent that such a return has not been met.

During CSR period 2008-2010 both Actis and CDC met their HMT determined rate of return and as a result no underperformance charge was levied.

International financial institutions

Investments in International Financial Institutions (IFIs) are valued at fair value. There is no market in these investments – all shareholders are sovereign states. Fair value has been assessed as DFID’s share of the net assets of the IFI, based on the number of shares subscribed by DFID. The Articles of Agreement of all the IFIs specify that this is the value that DFID would receive on the dissolution of the IFI.

All investments in IFIs are denominated in a currency other then sterling. DFID is therefore exposed to currency risk if the value of these currencies was to fall against sterling. DFID is also exposed to market risk, as the value of each investment is dependent upon the net assets of the IFI.

Base currencies of investments in International Financial Institutions are shown below. $(US) figures include those bodies for which US$ are used as the working equivalent for units of account formally expressed in Special Drawing Rights (SDR). Revaluations for IFIs include £55 million (net) of unrealised losses (2010-11: losses of £117 million) arising from changes in exchange rates.

| Currency | 2011-12 | 2010-11 | |----------|---------|---------| | | £000 | £000 | | International Bank for Reconstruction and Development | $1,766,200 | 1,103,241 | $1,655,231 | 1,032,583 | | International Finance Corporation | $1,035,734 | 646,962 | $937,671 | 584,947 | | European Bank for Reconstruction and Development | €1,186,660 | 988,702 | €1,116,857 | 988,719 | | Asian Development Bank | $338,660 | 211,541 | $368,263 | 229,734 | | Inter-American Development Bank | $183,218 | 114,445 | $194,011 | 121,030 | | African Development Bank (in Units of Account) | 141,787 | 145,275 | 79,809 | 80,891 | | Caribbean Development Bank | $73,160 | 45,698 | $57,987 | 36,174 | | Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency | $44,769 | 27,964 | $42,409 | 26,456 | | **Total** | **3,283,828** | **3,100,534** | 14. Financial instruments (continued)

14.2 Forward currency contracts

During the year under review DFID entered into the purchase of forward purchases to cover its forecast net exposures in relation to a significant currency transaction in an area where the department operates. No contracts matured in the period under review.

Forecast unrealised losses on forward purchases maturing in future periods, based on the actual exchange rates at the reporting period date, are analysed as follows:

| Foreign currency value | Sterling value £000 | Unrealised gains £000 | Unrealised losses £000 | Maturing in | |------------------------|---------------------|-----------------------|------------------------|-------------| | Current assets and liabilities | | | | | | South African Rand | 440,332,513 | 36,377 | – | (1,206) | 2012-13 | | | | 36,377 | – | (1,206) | | | Non Current Assets and Liabilities | | | | | | South African Rand | 484,677,155 | 38,146 | – | (1,561) | 2013-14 | | South African Rand | 243,103,976 | 18,443 | – | (854) | 2014-15 | | | | 56,589 | – | (2,415) | | | Total | | | | | | | 92,966 | – | (3,621) | |

### 14. Financial instruments (continued)

#### 14.3 Interest rate exposure – 2011-12

| Fixed rate weighted average interest rate | Fixed rate £000 | Floating rate £000 | No interest £000 | Total £000 | |------------------------------------------|-----------------|-------------------|-----------------|-----------|

#### 2011-12 Financial assets/(liabilities):

**Cash**

| Currency | Fixed rate | Floating rate | No interest | Total | |----------|------------|---------------|-------------|-------| | Sterling | – | 1,019 | (5,909) | (4,890) | | US dollars | – | 1,229 | – | 1,229 | | Euro | – | (90) | – | (90) | | Other currencies | – | 722 | – | 722 | | **Total** | – | 2,880 | (5,909) | (3,029) |

#### 2011-12 Financial assets: loans and receivables

| Currency | Fixed rate | Floating rate | No interest | Total | |----------|------------|---------------|-------------|-------| | Sterling | 6,292 | 11,074 | 13,967 | 31,333 | | US dollars | – | – | – | – | | Euro | – | – | 60,538 | 60,538 | | Other currencies | – | – | – | – | | **Total** | 6,292 | 11,074 | 74,505 | 91,871 |

#### 2011-12 Financial assets: available for sale

| Currency | Fixed rate | Floating rate | No interest | Total | |----------|------------|---------------|-------------|-------| | Sterling | – | – | – | – | | US dollars | – | – | 2,149,851 | 2,149,851 | | Euro | – | – | 988,702 | 988,702 | | Other currencies | – | – | 145,275 | 145,275 | | **Total** | – | – | 3,283,828 | 3,283,828 |

#### 2011-12 Financial liabilities: promissory notes at amortised cost

| Currency | Fixed rate | Floating rate | No interest | Total | |----------|------------|---------------|-------------|-------| | Sterling | – | – | 2,587,391 | 2,587,391 | | US dollars | – | – | 1,343 | 1,343 | | Euro | – | – | – | – | | Other currencies | – | – | – | – | | **Total** | – | – | 2,588,734 | 2,588,734 |

#### 2011-12 Financial liabilities: other payables at amortised cost

| Currency | Fixed rate | Floating rate | No interest | Total | |----------|------------|---------------|-------------|-------| | Sterling | – | – | 220,089 | 220,089 | | Other currencies | – | – | – | – | | **Total** | – | – | 220,089 | 220,089 |

### 14. Financial instruments (continued)

#### 14.3 Interest rate exposure – 2010-11

| | Fixed rate £000 | Floating rate £000 | No interest £000 | Total £000 | Fixed rate weighted average interest rate % | |----------------------|-----------------|--------------------|------------------|------------|--------------------------------------------|

#### 2010-11 Financial assets: cash

| Currency | Fixed rate | Floating rate | No interest | Total | Weighted average interest rate | |---------------------|------------|---------------|-------------|-------|-------------------------------| | Sterling | – | 1,356 | (20,681) | (19,325) | – | | US dollars | – | 1,100 | – | 1,100 | – | | Euro | – | – | – | – | – | | Other currencies | – | 1,149 | – | 1,149 | – | | **Total** | – | 3,605 | (20,681) | (17,076) | – |

#### 2010-11 Financial assets: loans and receivables

| Currency | Fixed rate | Floating rate | No interest | Total | Weighted average interest rate | |---------------------|------------|---------------|-------------|-------|-------------------------------| | Sterling | 7,144 | 11,434 | 13,298 | 31,876| 3.20% | | US dollars | – | – | – | – | – | | Euro | – | – | 96,296 | 96,296| – | | Other currencies | – | – | – | – | – | | **Total** | 7,144 | 11,434 | 109,594 | 128,172| 3.20% |

#### 2010-11 Financial assets: available for sale

| Currency | Fixed rate | Floating rate | No interest | Total | Weighted average interest rate | |---------------------|------------|---------------|-------------|-------|-------------------------------| | Sterling | – | – | – | – | – | | US dollars | – | – | 2,030,924 | 2,030,924| – | | Euro | – | – | 988,719 | 988,719| – | | Other currencies | – | – | 80,891 | 80,891| – | | **Total** | – | – | 3,100,534 | 3,100,534| – |

#### 2010-11 Financial liabilities: promissory notes at amortised cost

| Currency | Fixed rate | Floating rate | No interest | Total | Weighted average interest rate | |---------------------|------------|---------------|-------------|-------|-------------------------------| | Sterling | – | – | 2,242,238 | 2,242,238| – | | US dollars | – | – | 1,341 | 1,341 | – | | Euro | – | – | – | – | – | | Other currencies | – | – | – | – | – | | **Total** | – | – | 2,243,579 | 2,243,579| – |

#### 2010-11 Financial liabilities: other payables at amortised cost

| Currency | Fixed rate | Floating rate | No interest | Total | Weighted average interest rate | |---------------------|------------|---------------|-------------|-------|-------------------------------| | Sterling | – | – | 209,326 | 209,326| – | | Other currencies | – | – | – | – | – | | **Total** | – | – | 209,326 | 209,326| – | 14. Financial instruments (continued)

14.4 Currency risk exposures

The tables below show the Department’s currency exposures that give rise to exchange rate gains and losses that are recognised in the operating cost statement. Such exposures comprise those monetary assets and liabilities that are not denominated in the Department’s functional currency of sterling.

| Currency | 31 March 2012 | 31 March 2011 | |-------------------|---------------|---------------| | US dollars | 1,229 | 1,100 | | Euro | 58,322 | 96,296 | | Other currencies | 722 | 1,148 | | **Total** | **60,273** | **98,544** |

The table below shows the functional currency of the Department’s investments classed as available for sale.

| Currency | 31 March 2012 | 31 March 2011 | |-----------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------| | US dollars | 2,149,851 | 2,030,924 | | Euros | 988,702 | 988,719 | | Unit of Account (African Development Bank) | 145,275 | 80,891 | | **Total** | **3,283,828** | **3,100,534** |

14.5 Liquidity risk

The following tables show the maturity profile of the Department’s financial assets and liabilities other than cash and equity investments.

**Financial assets: maturity profile**

| Maturity Profile | 31 March 2012 | 31 March 2011 | |-------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------| | Due on demand | – | – | | Due within one year, but not on demand | 12,168 | 16,752 | | Due within one to two years | 10,428 | 15,048 | | Due within two to three years | 8,578 | 16,596 | | Due within three to four years | 11,202 | 14,045 | | Due within four to five years | 8,340 | 11,879 | | Due after five years | 41,155 | 53,852 | | **Total** | **91,871** | **128,172** |

**Financial liabilities: maturity profile**

| Maturity Profile | 31 March 2012 | 31 March 2011 | |-------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------| | Due on demand | 2,588,734 | 2,243,579 | | Due within one year, but not on demand | 173,879 | 171,532 | | Due within one to five years | 57,097 | 66,565 | | Less interest element of finance lease | (19,798) | (28,771) | | **Total** | **2,799,912** | **2,452,905** | 14. Financial instruments (continued)

14.6 Credit risk

The carrying amount of financial assets represents the maximum credit exposure. The maximum exposure to credit risk was as follows:

| Note | 31 March 2012 £000 | 31 March 2011 £000 | |------|-------------------|-------------------| | Fair value financial assets | 14.1 | 3,283,828 | 3,100,534 | | Loans and receivables | 16 | 91,871 | 128,171 | | Cash and cash equivalents | 17 | (3,029) | (17,076) | | **Total** | | **3,372,670** | **3,211,629** |

The Department’s ageing analysis was as follows:

| | 31 March 2012 £000 | 31 March 2011 £000 | |---|-------------------|-------------------| | Not past due | | 32,342 | 68,643 | | Past due not provided against | | 59,529 | 59,529 | | **Total** | | **91,871** | **128,172** |

The movement in provisions against loans and receivables was as follows:

| | Balance at 1 April 2010 | Reversal/(increase) in provision | Utilisation of provision | |---|-------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------------| | Balance at 31 March 2011 | | (108,888) | (12,194) | 22,619 | | Reversal/(increase) in provision | | | (24,275) | 14,426 | | Balance at 31 March 2012 | | | (108,312) |

Bilateral loans, and loans formerly managed by Actis, are made directly with sovereign states; multilateral loans are made with sovereign states through multilateral bodies such as the European Investment Bank. Assessments of credit risk are based on default history, political risks, and the potential future granting of debt relief.

Credit risk on the Department’s cash balances held at Government Banking Service is considered to be very low. Imprest balances are held with various institutions, all of which are major global banks with high credit ratings. 14. Financial instruments (continued)

14.7 Market risk

Interest rate risk

The Department’s interest rate risk arises primarily from loans made at a floating rate, and cash balances held overseas. Neither of these represent a significant source of income for the Department – total income from such sources in 2011-12 amounted to £1.2m (2010-11 £5.1m). A 0.75% change in interest rates, with all other variables held constant, would have a 0.001% (£0.1m) impact on net operating costs.

Foreign currency risk

The Department’s largest exposure in terms of net assets is in US dollar and Euro. On the statement of financial position, exchange gains on investments are taken to the revaluation reserve. Exchange losses are also charged to the revaluation reserve where a previously accumulated reserve is available; losses in excess of this reserve are charged to operating costs. As at 31 March 2012, £2,150m (2011 £2,031m) of the Department’s investments were denominated in US dollars and £989k (2011 £989k) in Euros. Exchange gains and losses on other financial assets and liabilities are charged to operating costs and are minimal based on the composition of assets and liabilities in foreign currency.

At 31 March 2012, if sterling had weakened by 10% against the US dollar, with all other variables held constant, net assets would have decreased by £239.1m (2011 £225.7m). Net operating costs would have reduced by £286k (2011 £158k). At the same date if sterling had weakened by 10% against the Euro, with all other variables held constant, net assets would have decreased by £110k (2011 £110k) with no impact on the operating costs.

During the year under review DFID did enter into arrangements to mitigate its exposure to currency risk on a large programme denominated in South African Rand where forward contracts were purchased to match milestone payments. At 31 March 2012 note 14.2 shows unrealised losses of £3.6m, which were charged to operating costs during 2011-12.

Other price risk

The Department’s investments in IFIs are based on share of the net assets of each IFI. Although there is no public traded market for these investments, changes in the underlying net asset values of the IFIs would impact on the investment value shown in these accounts. As at 31 March 2012, a 10% reduction in net asset values of the IFIs, with all other variables held constant, would result in the Department’s net assets being reduced by £328.8m (2011 £310.1m).

Investments in CDC and Actis are shown at the lower of historic cost or market value. Where market value is lower this will be historic cost less any impairment to take to this value. As at 31 March 2012, a 10% reduction in the net asset value of these organisations, with all other variables held constant, would not have any effect on either the Department’s net assets, or net operating costs (2011 £nil). This is because market value is in excess of historic cost.

## 15. Revaluation and impairments

| Description | 2011-12 | 2010-11 | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|---------| | | £000 | £000 | | **Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure** | | | | Revaluation Reserve | | | | Total | | | | **Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure** | | | | Revaluation Reserve | | | | Total | | | | **Impairment of IT equipment** | 12 | 472 | | **Impairment/(Revaluation) of Land, Buildings & Dwellings** | 12 | 1,043 | | (Revaluation)/Impairment of Furniture and equipment | 12 | (770) | | **Impairment/(Revaluation) of Vehicles** | 12 | 27 | | **Revaluation/(impairment) of Software licences and IT systems** | 13 | 1,106 | | (Revaluation) of Leasehold Related Assets | 12 | (770) | | **Loss on disposal of property, plant and equipment** | 9 | 1,288 | | (Gain)/loss on disposal of Intangible Assets | 9 | – | | **Realised element to General Fund** | 20 | 293 | | **Revaluation of Actis** | 14 | (555) | | **Revaluation of International Financial Institutions** | 14 | (47,245)| | **Total** | 6,953 | (44,341)|

Chapter 5: Accounts: Department for International Development

### 16. Trade receivables and other current assets

| | Bilateral and multilateral loans £000 | Other loans £000 | Total £000 | |--------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-----------------|------------| | **Gross Value less provisions for debt relief and non-payment** | | | | | At 1 April 2011 | 116,475 | 11,696 | 128,171 | | Repaid | (21,144) | (972) | (22,116) | | (Increase) in provision | (24,275) | – | (24,275) | | Utilisation of Provision | 14,426 | 5,906 | 20,332 | | Written off | (17,020) | (5,906) | (22,926) | | Foreign exchange (loss) | (9,438) | – | (9,438) | | Decrease in Borrowing Costs | 21,518 | 605 | 22,123 | | **At 31 March 2012** | | | | | Due within one year | 10,356 | 1,812 | 12,168 | | **Total: trade and other receivables falling due after more than 12 months** | 70,186 | 9,517 | 79,703 | | *of which* | | | | | falling due after 1 year less than 2 years | 8,573 | 1,855 | 10,428 | | falling due after 2 years less than 3 years | 6,664 | 1,914 | 8,578 | | falling due after 3 years less than 4 years | 9,174 | 2,028 | 11,202 | | falling due after 4 years less than 5 years | 7,023 | 1,317 | 8,340 | | falling due after 5 years | 38,752 | 2,403 | 41,155 | | **Total** | 70,186 | 9,517 | 79,703 |

Repayments included above

| | (21,144) | (972) | (22,116) |

**Repayments included in non-operating income**

| | | | | | Principal repayments accrued 2011-12 | 4,786 | – | 4,786 | | Principal repayments accrued 2010-11 | 19,157 | – | 19,157 | | Principal repayments accrued 2009-10 | 18,194 | – | 18,194 | | Principal repayments accrued 2008-09 | 22,178 | – | 22,178 | | **Total** | 64,315 | – | 64,315 |

**Included in cash flow statement – Note 22.4**

| | (16,358) | (972) | (17,330) |

All receivables relate to the core department only. CSC and ICAI do not hold any receivables.

### 16. Trade receivables and other current assets (continued)

| | Bilateral and multilateral loans £000 | Other loans £000 | Total £000 | |--------------------------------|---------------------------------------|------------------|------------| | **Gross Value less provisions for debt relief and non-payment** | | | | | At 1 April 2010 | 351,317 | 12,838 | 364,155 | | Additions | 29,900 | – | 29,900 | | Repaid | (251,140) | (1,176) | (252,316) | | (Increase) in provision | (12,194) | – | (12,194) | | Utilisation of Provision | 22,619 | – | 22,619 | | Written off | (23,106) | – | (23,106) | | Foreign exchange (loss) | (16,018) | – | (16,018) | | Decrease in Borrowing Costs | 15,097 | 34 | 15,131 | | **At 31 March 2011** | | | | | Due within one year | 15,123 | 1,629 | 16,752 | | **Total: trade and other receivables falling due after more than 12 months** | 101,352 | 10,067 | 111,419 | | * of which | | | | | falling due after 1 year less than 2 years | 13,402 | 1,646 | 15,048 | | falling due after 2 years less than 3 years | 14,921 | 1,675 | 16,596 | | falling due after 3 years less than 4 years | 12,328 | 1,717 | 14,045 | | falling due after 4 years less than 5 years | 10,103 | 1,776 | 11,879 | | falling due after 5 years | 50,598 | 3,253 | 53,851 | | **Total** | 101,352 | 10,067 | 111,419 | | Additions included above | 29,900 | – | 29,900 | | Rescheduling of loans | – | – | – | | **Included in statement of cash flows – Note 22.4** | 29,900 | – | 29,900 | | Repayments included above | (251,140) | (1,176) | (252,316) | | **Repayments included in non-operating income** | (251,140) | (1,176) | (252,316) | | Principal repayments accrued 2010-11 | 19,157 | – | 19,157 | | Principal repayments accrued 2009-10 | 18,194 | – | 18,194 | | Principal repayments accrued 2008-09 | 22,178 | – | 22,178 | | **Total** | (191,611) | (1,176) | (192,787) | | **Included in statement of cashflows – Note 22.4** | (231,983) | (1,176) | (233,159) | 16. Trade receivables and other current assets (continued)

16.1 Analysis by type

| | 31 March 2012 £000 | 31 March 2011 £000 | |--------------------------------|--------------------|--------------------| | Loans repayable within one year| 12,168 | 16,752 | | Deposits and advances | 11,738 | 7,257 | | Prepayments and accrued income\*| 37,985 | 116,259 | | Amounts due from the Consolidated Fund in respect of supply | 9,877 | 16,001 | | Other amounts due from Consolidated Fund | – | 1,075 | | **Total** | **71,768** | **157,344** |

\*Of which £4,654,281 relates to principal repayments on loans accrued (2010-11 £59,529,171; 2009-10 £40,264,164)

16.2 Intra-Government balances

| | Amounts falling due within one year | Amounts falling due after more than one year | |--------------------------------|-------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------| | | 31 March 2012 £000 | 31 March 2011 £000 | 31 March 2012 £000 | 31 March 2011 £000 | | Balances with other central government bodies | 11,031 | 21,708 | – | – | | Balances with local authorities | – | – | – | – | | Balances with NHS Trusts | – | – | – | – | | Balances with public corporations and trading funds | – | – | – | – | | **Subtotal: intra-government balances** | **11,031** | **21,708** | – | – | | Balances with bodies external to government | 60,737 | 135,636 | 79,703 | 111,419 | | **Total receivable at 31 March** | **71,768** | **157,344** | **79,703** | **111,419** |

The above relates to assets held by DFID. CSC and ICAI do not hold any assets.

### 17. Cash and cash equivalents

| | 2011-12 | 2010-11 | |--------------------------------|---------|---------| | | DFID | Departmental group | DFID | Departmental group | | Balance at 1 April | (17,076) | (17,076) | (26,467) | (26,467) | | Net change in cash and cash equivalent balances | 14,047 | 15,579 | 9,391 | 9,391 | | **Balance at 31 March** | (3,029) | (1,497) | (17,076) | (17,076) |

The following balances at 31 March were held at:

| | 2011-12 | 2010-11 | |--------------------------------|---------|---------| | Government Banking Service – Core Department | (5,909) | (5,909) | (20,681) | (20,681) | | Government Banking Service – NDPB | – | 1,532 | – | – | | Commercial banks | 2,880 | 2,880 | 3,605 | 3,605 | | **Balance at 31 March** | (3,029) | (1,497) | (17,076) | (17,076) |

Made up of:

| | 2011-12 | 2010-11 | |--------------------------------|---------|---------| | Bank Overdraft | (5,909) | (5,909) | (20,681) | (20,681) | | Cash and Cash Equivalents | 2,880 | 4,412 | 3,605 | 3,605 | | **Balance at 31 March** | (3,029) | (1,497) | (17,076) | (17,076) |

Cash balances at Government Banking Service were held in sterling. No interest is earned on cash balances held at Government Banking Service. Imprest balances are held in a variety of local currencies, none individually greater than £607,258 (2010-11 £834,388). Interest is earned on imprest balances, but is not a material amount – total interest earned on bank balances was £11,214 (2010-11 £34,582). 18. Trade payables and other current liabilities

18.1 Analysis by type

Amounts falling due within one year

| | 31 March 2012 | 31 March 2011 | |--------------------------------|---------------|---------------| | | DFID | Departmental group | DFID | Departmental group | | Taxation | 1,290 | 1,290 | 1,114 | 1,114 | | Other taxation and social security | 801 | 801 | 596 | 596 | | Other payables | 7,455 | 7,455 | 10,123 | 10,123 | | Accruals and deferred income | 163,777 | 164,543 | 150,682 | 150,682 | | Current part of finance leases | 556 | 556 | 45 | 45 | | | 173,879 | 174,645 | 162,560 | 162,560 | | Promissory Notes: due on demand| 2,588,734 | 2,588,734 | 2,243,579 | 2,243,579 |

Amounts issued from the Consolidated Fund for supply but not spent at year end

| | 31 March 2011 | | | 31 March 2012 | | received | 7,918 | 7,918 | | receivable | – | – | | | 2,770,531 | 2,771,297 |

Amounts falling due after more than one year:

| | 31 March 2011 | 31 March 2012 | | | 31 March 2012 | 31 March 2012 | | Finance leases | 46,210 | 46,210 | | | 46,210 | 46,766 | | | 46,210 | 46,766 |

Promissory note payable: Movement during the year

| | £000 | £000 | | Balance at 1 April 2011 | (1,499,121) | | | Charge to operating costs in 2010-11 – new deposits | (1,828,091) | | | Cash drawn down against notes previously issued | 1,083,557 | | | Foreign Exchange gains/(losses) | 76 | | | Balance at 31 March 2011 | (744,458) | (2,243,579) | | Charge to operating costs in 2011-12 – new deposits | (1,412,385) | | | Cash drawn down against notes previously issued | 1,067,232 | | | Foreign Exchange gains/(losses) | (2) | | | Balance at 31 March 2012 | (345,155) | (2,588,734) |

Promissory note payables have been classified as financial liabilities measured at amortised cost. They have been shown as due within one year, as they are legally payable on demand, so the maturity profile in the statement of financial position, and in note 14.5, shows the earliest date at which they could be payable. 18. Trade payables and other current liabilities (continued)

18.1 Analysis by type (continued)

Promissory note payable: analysis by institution at 31 March 2012

| Institution | At 31 March 2012 | At 31 March 2011 | |--------------------------------------------------|------------------|------------------| | | Capital £000 | Resource £000 | Capital £000 | Resource £000 | | European Bank for Reconstruction and Development | – | – | – | – | | Other capital | 1,343 | – | 1,341 | – | | International Development Association | – | 1,559,000 | – | 1,127,250 | | African Development Fund | – | 455,885 | – | 382,823 | | Global Environment Fund | – | 105,791 | – | 102,116 | | Asian Development Fund | – | 80,592 | – | 83,565 | | Global Fund to fight Aids, TB and Malaria | – | 168,000 | – | 332,000 | | Environmental Transformation Fund | – | 196,114 | – | 180,889 | | Other (CDB, IFAD, UNFCC, LDCF) | – | 22,009 | – | 33,595 | | **Total** | **1,343** | **2,587,391** | **1,341** | **2,242,238** |

DFID, being a central government department financed from the Consolidated Fund, does not face any significant liquidity risk on these liabilities. There are no material balances denominated in foreign currencies, so currency risk on these liabilities is not significant. Note 14 gives further details on these risks.

18.2 Intra-Government balances

| Category | Amounts falling due within one year | Amounts falling due after more than one year | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------| | | 31 March 2012 £000 | 31 March 2011 £000 | 31 March 2012 £000 | 31 March 2011 £000 | | Balances with other central government bodies | (12,156) | – | – | – | | Balances with local authorities | – | – | – | – | | Balances with NHS bodies | – | – | – | – | | Balances with public corporations and trading funds | – | – | – | – | | **Subtotal: intra-government balances** | (12,156) | (1,938) | – | – | | Balances with bodies external to government | (2,758,375) | (2,404,201) | (46,210) | (46,766) | | **Total payables** | **(2,770,531)** | **(2,406,139)** | **(46,210)** | **(46,766)** |

## 19. Provisions

| | IFFIm £000 | AMC £000 | ATP Agreements £000 | Early Retirement Costs £000 | Other £000 | Total £000 | |----------------------|------------|----------|---------------------|-----------------------------|------------|------------| | **Balance at 1 April 2010** | 695,602 | – | 11,018 | 7,938 | 24,674 | 739,232 | | **Provided in the year** | 278,678 | 89,088 | 97 | 2,516 | 4,870 | 375,249 | | **Release of provision** | – | (1,984) | (104) | – | (209) | (2,297) | | **Provision utilised in the year** | (34,558) | (13,932) | (3,318) | (3,174) | (9,970) | (64,952) | | **Borrowing costs** | (54,196) | – | – | – | – | (54,196) | | **Balance at 31 March 2011** | 885,526 | 73,172 | 7,693 | 7,280 | 19,365 | 993,036 | | **Provided in the year** | 17,186 | 58,467 | – | 3,765 | 1,309 | 80,727 | | **Release of provision** | – | – | (6) | – | (89) | (95) | | **Provision utilised in the year** | (43,944) | (33,804) | (2,717) | (5,645) | (7,064) | (93,174) | | **Borrowing costs** | 42,528 | (5,101) | – | – | – | 37,427 | | **Balance at 31 March 2012** | 901,296 | 92,734 | 4,970 | 5,400 | 13,521 | 1,017,921 |

### Analysis of expected timing of discounted flows

| | IFFIm £000 | AMC £000 | ATP Agreements £000 | Early Retirement Costs £000 | Other £000 | Total £000 | |----------------------|------------|----------|---------------------|-----------------------------|------------|------------| | No later than one year | 54,548 | 11,500 | 2,084 | 1,343 | 10,044 | 79,519 | | Between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2018 | 284,151 | 81,234 | 2,886 | 3,504 | 3,477 | 375,252 | | Between 1 April 2018 and 31 March 2023 | 562,597 | – | – | 553 | – | 563,150 | | Thereafter | – | – | – | – | – | – | | **Balance at 31 March 2012** | 901,296 | 92,734 | 4,970 | 5,400 | 13,521 | 1,017,921 |

[1] Only the provision for IFFIm and AMC have been discounted on the basis that the impact of discounting would not be material on any of the other provisions.

Provision for the International Finance Facility for Immunisations (IFFIm) represents the net present value of committed payments to cover the UK share of currently issued bonds. The discount rate used to generate the net present value is the real discount rate set by HM Treasury. IFFIm is an international development financing institution that is supported by sovereign donors. IFFIm will borrow operating funds in the international capital markets over the 10 years from 2006-07 backed by these pledges. The UK has pledged a total of £1,315m through to 2026 with a further £250m through to 2030, representing 44.14% of the total amounts pledged at 31 March 2012. Twenty one bond issues have now been made, giving a total liability including interest of £1,294m. The UK is therefore liable for £901m in net present value terms at 31 March 2012 (after deducting payments made), which will be covered by payment obligations through to 2023.

Provision for Advance Market Commitments (AMC) represents the net present value of the UK share of supplier agreements signed. The discount rate used to generate the net present value is the real discount rate adjusted for inflation, set by HM Treasury. The UK has pledged a total of $485 million, through to 2021. At 31st March 2012 this represented 32% of commitments made. Supplier agreements to facilitate vaccine demands have been signed with a value of $720 million, the UK share of this is $230 million. The net present value of this is £92 million, which will be covered by payment obligations up to 2015.

Provisions for Aid & Trade Provision (ATP) agreements represent sums which DFID is committed to pay to the Export Credit Guarantees Department (ECGD) for interest make-up and insurance premiums under former mixed credit agreements (Aid and Trade Provision) projects. The ATP scheme is effectively closed and will not significantly affect the amount of the provision. 19. Provisions (continued)

Provisions for early retirement represent the full estimated cost of payments to be made by DFID to early retirees up to the normal retirement age. The timing of calls on the provision can be forecast with reasonable accuracy. The amount provided is uncertain only to the extent that adjustments may need to be made for up-rating of benefits and for unexpected changes in the number of beneficiaries. Amounts provided are likely to be used within at most 10 years.

Other provisions represent:

(a) sums for rents payable by the University of Greenwich for property occupied by a former Executive Agency of the Department, when the work of the Agency was taken over by the University. The main lease by the Department is treated as a finance lease. The rent received is lower than the finance charges incurred by the Department under the main lease. The provision covers the shortfall of rents receivable against finance charges payable over the main lease period to 2014.

(b) certain non-statutory pension obligations (most pension obligations for which DFID is responsible are included in the separate overseas superannuation account).

(c) estimated liabilities at the 31st March 2012 of overseas offices in respect of terminal benefit payments to staff appointed in country.

(d) redundancy liabilities for redundancies where decision had been reached at 31st March 2012 but terms had not been agreed between both parties.

The above relates to liabilities held by DFID. CSC and ICAI do not hold any liabilities requiring disclosure. 20. General fund

The general fund reflects the realised and unrealised balance of the cumulative difference between net operating costs and financing, provided by Parliament, adjusted for amounts payable to the Consolidated Fund.

| | DFID £000 | DFID £000 | Departmental Group £000 | Departmental Group £000 | |--------------------------------|-----------|-----------|-------------------------|-------------------------| | General fund at 31 March 2010 | 272,909 | 272,909 | | | | Comprehensive Net Expenditure for the Year | (7,103,667) | (7,103,667) | | | | Net parliamentary funding | 6,077,190 | 6,077,190 | | | | Supply Reissued | – | – | | | | Payable for Supply | 16,001 | 16,001 | | | | Financing provided | 6,093,191 | 6,093,191 | | | | Notional costs within operating costs | 261 | 261 | | | | Realised element of revaluation reserve | 293 | 293 | | | | Operating income payable to Consolidated Fund | (220) | (220) | | | | CFERs payable to the Consolidated Fund | (198,954) | (198,954) | | | | Net (decrease) in general fund | (1,209,096) | (1,209,096) | | | | General fund at 31 March 2011 | (936,187) | (936,187) | | | | Net operating costs for the year | (6,918,335) | (6,917,569) | | | | Net parliamentary funding | 6,449,350 | 6,449,350 | | | | Supply Reissued | – | – | | | | Payable for Supply | 9,877 | 9,877 | | | | Financing provided | 6,459,227 | 6,459,227 | | | | Notional costs within operating costs | 265 | 265 | | | | Realised element of revaluation reserve | 210 | 210 | | | | Operating income payable to Consolidated Fund | (255) | (255) | | | | CFERs payable to the Consolidated Fund | (8,956) | (8,956) | | | | Net (decrease) in general fund | (467,844) | (467,078) | | | | General fund at 31 March 2012 | (1,404,031) | (1,403,265) | | |

[1] The Department’s total non-current liabilities and negative general fund reflect the inclusion of liabilities falling due in future years. Under the Government Resources and Accounts 2000, no money may be drawn from the fund other than that required for the service of the specified year. In common with other government departments, the future financing of DFID’s liabilities is to be met by future grants of supply and application of future income, both to be approved annually by Parliament. Such approval for 2012-13 amounts has already been provided and there is no reason to believe the allocation for 2013-14, 2014-15 and beyond will not be forthcoming. It has accordingly been considered appropriate to adopt a going concern basis for the preparation of these statements. 21. Revaluation reserve

| Description | £000 | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------| | Balance at 31 March 2010 | 1,673,320 | | Gain on revaluation – International Financial Institutions | 47,245 | | Loss on Intangibles | (1,106) | | Loss on Vehicles | (27) | | Loss on Land and Buildings | (1,043) | | Realised element to General Fund | (293) | | Balance at 31 March 2011 | 1,718,096 | | Gain on revaluation – International Financial Institutions | 152,750 | | Gain on Intangibles | 37 | | Gain on Vehicles | 33 | | Gain on Land and Buildings | 2,193 | | Realised element to General Fund | (210) | | Balance at 31 March 2012 | 1,872,899 |

22. Notes to the statement of cash flows

22.1 Reconciliation of comprehensive net expenditure to operating cash flows

| Description | 31 March 2012 | 31 March 2011 | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------| | Net operating cost | (6,917,569) | (7,103,667) | | Adjustments for non-cash transactions | 1,613,277 | 2,177,681 | | Decrease in trade and other receivables | 24,140 | 12,725 | | Movement in receivables for items not passing through the SoCNE | (9,876) | (15,893) | | Decrease/(Increase) in trade payables | 4,520 | (27,918) | | Movement in payables for items not passing through the SoCNE | 7,009 | 28,601 | | Working capital movement: capital items | (1,553) | 1,417 | | Use of provisions | (93,174) | (64,951) | | Draw down of promissory notes | (1,067,232) | (1,083,557) | | **Net cash outflow from operating activities** | **(6,440,458)** | **(6,075,562)** |

### 22. Notes to the statement of cash flows (continued)

#### 22.2 Cash flows from investing activities

| | 31 March 2012 £000 | 31 March 2011 £000 | |----------------------|--------------------|--------------------| | Purchase of intangible assets | (2,895) | (5,049) | | Purchase of property, plant and equipment | (10,569) | (9,547) | | Proceeds of disposal of property, plant and equipment | 3,841 | 1,638 | | Additions to investments | (30,544) | (5,756) | | Loans to other bodies | – | (29,900) | | Repayments from other bodies | 22,116 | 233,159 | | **Net cash inflow/(outflow) from investing activities** | **(18,051)** | **184,545** |

#### 22.3 Cash flows from financing activities

| | 31 March 2012 £000 | 31 March 2011 £000 | |----------------------|--------------------|--------------------| | From the Consolidated Fund (Supply) – Current Year | 6,449,350 | 6,077,190 | | From the Consolidated Fund (Supply) – Prior Year | 16,001 | 25,496 | | **Net financing** | **6,465,351** | **6,102,686** |

#### 22.4 Analysis of capital expenditure, financial investments and associated CFERs

| | Property, plant & equipment, and intangible assets £000 | Investments & Loans £000 | Non-Operating Income £000 | Net total £000 | |----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|----------------| | Administration | 13,464 | – | – | 13,464 | | Programme: Long term loans | – | – | (17,330) | (17,330) | | Programme: Investments | – | 30,544 | – | 30,544 | | Programme: Investments non cash | – | – | – | – | | Programme: CDC | – | – | – | – | | Other Receipts | – | – | (3,840) | (3,840) | | **Total** | **13,464** | **30,544** | **(21,170)** | **22,838** |

Accrued principal repayments | (4,786) Total non operating income | (25,956) Amounts to be surrendered to the Consolidated Fund | 8,956 Non Operating CFERs | (17,000)

### 22. Notes to the statement of cash flows (continued)

#### 22.4 Analysis of capital expenditure, financial investments and associated CFERs (continued)

| | Property, plant & equipment, and intangible assets £000 | Investments & Loans £000 | Non-Operating Income £000 | Net total £000 | |----------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|----------------| | Administration | 13,179 | – | – | 13,179 | | Programme: Long term loans | – | 29,900 | (233,159) | (203,259) | | Programme: Investments | – | 5,756 | – | 5,756 | | Programme: Investments non cash | – | – | – | – | | Programme: CDC | – | – | – | – | | Other Receipts | – | – | (1,638) | (1,638) | | **Total** | **13,179** | **35,656** | **(234,797)** | **(185,962)** |

Accrued principal repayments: (19,157) Total non operating income: (253,954) Amounts to be surrendered to the Consolidated Fund: 198,954 Non Operating CFERs: (55,000) 23. Capital and other commitments

23.1 Capital commitments

| | 31 March 2011 | 31 March 2010 | |----------------------|---------------|---------------| | | £000 | £000 |

Contracted capital commitments at 31 March not otherwise included in these financial statements

Property, plant and equipment

| | 2011 | 2010 | |----------------------|------|------| | | 566 | 3,417|

23.2 Commitments under leases

23.2.1 Operating leases

Total future minimum lease payments under operating leases are given in the table below for each of the following periods.

| | 31 March 2012 | 31 March 2011 | |----------------------|---------------|---------------| | | £000 | £000 |

Obligations under operating leases for the following periods comprise:

Land, Buildings and Dwellings

| | 2012 | 2011 | |----------------------|------|------| | Not later than one year | 15,954 | 13,410 | | Later than one year and not later than five years | 33,927 | 28,654 | | Later than five years | 18,997 | 24,379 | | **Total** | **68,878** | **66,443** |

23.2.2 Finance leases

Total future minimum lease payments under finance leases are given in the table below for each of the following periods.

| | 31 March 2012 | 31 March 2011 | |----------------------|---------------|---------------| | | £000 | £000 |

Obligations under finance leases for the following periods comprise:

Land, Buildings and Dwellings

| | 2012 | 2011 | |----------------------|------|------| | Not later than one year | 9,468 | 9,017 | | Later than one year and not later than five years | 57,097 | 66,565 | | **Total** | **66,565** | **75,582** |

Less interest element

| | (19,798) | (28,771) |

Present value of obligations

| | 46,767 | 46,811 |

Not later than one year

| | 556 | 45 |

Later than one year and not later than five years

| | 46,211 | 46,766 |

Present value of obligations

| | 46,767 | 46,811 | 23. Capital and other commitments (continued)

23.2.3 Operating leases receivables

Total future minimum lease receivables under operating leases are given in the table below for each of the following periods.

| | 31 March 2012 | 31 March 2011 | |----------------------|---------------|---------------| | | £000 | £000 | | Receivables under operating leases comprise: | | | | Land, buildings and dwellings | | | | Not later than one year | 5,169 | 5,040 | | Later than one year and not later than five years | 7,410 | 12,579 | | Total | 12,579 | 17,619 |

The above relates to commitments held by DFID. CSC and ICAI do not hold any commitments requiring disclosure.

24. Contingent liabilities

The Department has the following contingent liabilities.

Contingent liabilities with an approximate value of £0.1m (2010-11: £0.4m) exist in respect of guarantees to the European Investment Bank’s lending to UK Overseas Territories. Additional contingent liabilities of £2,848m (2010-11: £732m) exist in respect of contributions due to international organisations which have been subject to formal approval by Parliament but which are not yet supported either by promissory notes or cash payments.

In addition to contingent liabilities disclosed above in accordance with IAS 37, the Department discloses for parliamentary reporting and accountability purposes certain contingent liabilities where the likelihood of a transfer of economic benefit is remote. These amount to £12,471.1m (2010-11: £9,946.6m) and comprise:

- £12,195.4m (2010-11: £9,677.5m) in respect of callable capital on investments in International Financial Institutions;
- £111.1m (2010-11: £107.1m) in respect of for the UK share of EU member states’ collective guarantees of the European Investment Bank’s lending under the Lome conventions and the parallel Council decisions on the Association of Overseas Countries and Territories;
- Maintenance of the value of subscriptions paid to capital stock of regional development banks and funds (unquantifiable);
- Indemnities in respect of the transfer of ownership of the Natural Resources Institute (unquantifiable);
- £164.6m (2010-11: £162m) in respect of other items over £100,000 (or lower, where required by specific statute) that do not arise in the normal course of business and which are reported to Parliament by departmental Minute prior to the Department entering into the arrangement. This includes a guarantee over a borrowing facility undertaken by a non UK overseas territory.

25. Losses and special payments

25.1 Losses statement

| | 2011-12 Number of cases | 2011-12 £000 | 2010-11 Number of cases | 2010-11 £000 | |----------------------|-------------------------|--------------|-------------------------|--------------| | Total | 58 | 1,329 | 74 | 25 |

Details of cases over £250,000

- Cash Losses
- Claims abandoned
- Administrative write-offs
- Fruitless payments
- Store Losses

The two fruitless payments over £250,000 consist of:

- Write off of £0.8m relating to costs incurred to build office and residential accommodation to house staff in Jerusalem. The costs incurred were predominantly for professional fees to develop a wide range of technical reports and designs for the new build. Due to the complexity of the build and the conditions within the country it was deemed that continuing with the project no longer represented the preferred or most cost efficient option of accommodating DFID’s staff in country.

- Write off of £0.3m relating to the confiscation within Southern Somalia by Al Shabaab of 5 trucks transporting DFID funded aid. This was viewed as non-sanctioned aid. DFID continues to work with our partner organisation to consider risks such as this which reduce the effectiveness of our aid.

25.2 Special payments

| | 2011-12 | 2010-11 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | Total | 3 | 1 |

There were no individual cases greater than £250,000 during the year under review or the prior year. 26. Related-party transactions

DFID is the 100 per cent shareholder in CDC Group plc. DFID had no transactions with CDC during the year.

DFID has a 40 per cent interest in Actis LLP. DFID had no transactions with Actis LLP during the year. See note 29.1 for details of a transaction after the reporting date.

DFID has had a number of transactions with other government departments and other central government bodies. These are undertaken under normal trading circumstances, at arms length, and are reported within DFID’s net resource outturn. Amounts due to and from other government departments are disclosed separately in notes 16 and 18. No amounts have been written off during 2011-12 to or from other government departments. The largest volume of transactions, in frequency and value, have been with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The Accounting Officer for DFID has disclosed a related party transaction in his Management Board return, as a close family member works for DFID. The Accounting Officer has no role in decision-making regarding pay, posting or promotion for the individual concerned. Should a situation arise that the Accounting Officer was involved in a decision that would directly affect his close family member, two Director Generals and a member of senior management at the Cabinet Office would be consulted and agree on the course of action.

Further to this, no Minister, board member, key manager or other related party has undertaken any material transactions with the Department during the year.

27. Third-party assets

The department held amounts shown below, which relates to cash provided by other development agencies as part of jointly funded programmes. These funds are held in the capacity of project manager/lead donor and are disbursed when required by the programme. These are not held in DFID’s name and as such are not included in cash held by the core Department, as set out in note 17 on page 173.

| | 2011-12 | 2010-11 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | Amounts held in third party account | 32,638 | 17,757 | 28. Entities within the departmental accounting boundary

The entities within the boundary during 2010-11 and 2011-12 were as follows. DFID Income and Expenditure incorporated financing of the following Non Departmental Public Bodies (NDPB), in full or in part, in the current financial year:

**Executive NDPB** Commonwealth Scholarship Commission (CSC)

**Advisory NDPB** Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI)

Reconciliation of Grant in Aid to CSC from Core Department and Other departments

| | 2011-12 | 2010-11 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | Core Department | 18,918 | 17,382 | | Other Department | 625 | 1,019 | | **Total Grant in Aid to CSC** | **19,543** | **18,401** |

*of which*

| | 2011-12 | 2010-11 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | Administration Grant in Aid | 2,144 | 1,676 | | Programme Grant in Aid | 17,399 | 16,725 | | **Total Grant in Aid to CSC** | **19,543** | **18,401** |

CSC Administrative Expenditure

| | 2011-12 | 2010-11 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | 2,098 | 1,676 |

CSC Programme Expenditure

| | 2011-12 | 2010-11 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | 16,678 | 16,725 |

**Total CSC Expenditure**

| | 2011-12 | 2010-11 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | 18,776 | 18,401 |

Cash and cash equivalents

| | 2011-12 | 2010-11 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | 1,532 | – |

Trade payables

| | 2011-12 | 2010-11 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | (765) | – |

**Total CSC Expenditure**

| | 2011-12 | 2010-11 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | 19,543 | 18,401 |

DFID Income from other government departments to fund grant in aid payment

| | 2011-12 | 2010-11 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | (625) | (1,019) |

29. Events after the reporting date

The Department for International Development Departmental Accounts’ are laid before the Houses of Parliament by HM Treasury on 25 June 2012. No events have been identified between this date and the end of reporting period requiring adjustment to these Departmental Accounts.

29.1 Non adjusting events after the reporting date

On 30 April 2012 DFID signed a binding sale agreement in relation to disposing of its 40% shareholding in Actis LLP. The Secretary of State announced this transaction in Parliament on 1 May 2012. This shareholding is currently included in note 14 on page 161 as an Available for Sale Investment. The sale agreement confirmed DFID’s intention to dispose of this shareholding, in exchange for cash payments totalling $13 million and a percentage interest in Actis managements’ carried interest in funds. Under the rules set out within the FReM investments are required to be held at the lower of historic cost or realisable value. Accordingly the value set out in note 14 on page 161 is the historic cost value. In the 2012-13 accounts the investment will be disposed of at this value and the difference between this value and the amounts received will be surrendered to the Consolidated Fund as non-operating Income. CHAPTER 6:

Analysis of Departmental Expenditure

Common Core Tables (unaudited)

In line with Her Majesty's Treasury (HMT) Public Expenditure System (PES) guidance on the preparation of 2011-12 Annual Report and Accounts, DIFD has produced the following common core tables. Tables 1, 3 and 4 covers the required period 2007-08 to 2014-15. Table 2 is required to cover 2011-12 alone. These tables summarise key performance information against prior years, budget and forecast information.

The figures up to and including 2011-12 show the actual resource outturn for that year, and for 2012-13 onwards indicative planning figures are presented. These figures were informed by the spending review 2010 and revisions to provisional allocations made within the Autumn Statement. These provisional plans may be subject to revision, as DFID strategy is continually reviewed to ensure aid is used most effectively.

DFID's available programme resources are allocated to country or regional specific aid programmes, international aid programmes, or other programmes in the annual resource round. This establishes an aid framework allocation, approved by the Secretary of State, which provides divisions within DFID with a firm budget for the current year. For full details on what the outturn for 2011-12 represents and how this was delivered reference should be made to other narrative within the Annual Report and Accounts.

An Excel version of these tables, as required by HM Treasury regulations, is included on DFID external website. Table B.1: Public Spending

This table summarises budgets and outturn on a basis consistent with the Estimate Part II section headings. One adjustment has been made for the period 2007-08 to 2010-11 where capital grants are reflected in outturn as resource but are funded by capital. The revised format of note 3 now reflects this change to the Accounts.

As a result of the new Ministers, appointed during 2010-11, a new basis of assessing aid delivery was formed. This allocates aid across five pillars. As outturn for the previous 5 years was not based on this methodology it is not appropriate to restate these figures, on this basis. As a result the original Estimate headings are displayed for outturn from 2007-08 to 2010-11, with only Plan data shown on the new basis. This is consistent with information available on COINS.

| Basis for 2007-08 to 2010-11 | 2007-08 Outturn | 2008-09 Outturn | 2009-10 Outturn | 2010-11 Outturn | 2011-12 Plans | 2012-13 Plans | 2013-14 Plans | 2014-15 Plans | |-----------------------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------| | Resources (excluding capital grants) | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | | RFR1: Eliminating poverty in poorer countries | 3,815,040 | 4,312,049 | 5,003,799 | 5,318,663 | – | – | – | – | | Of which: | | | | | | | | | | Spending in Departmental Expenditure Limits | 3,729,144 | 3,971,651 | 4,624,050 | 5,004,383 | – | – | – | – | | A: Bilateral aid to Africa | 1,225,219 | 1,340,237 | 1,480,352 | 1,557,019 | – | – | – | – | | B: Bilateral Aid to South Asia | 796,388 | 744,824 | 735,452 | 759,785 | – | – | – | – | | C: Bilateral Aid to the Rest of the World | 222,006 | 376,267 | 389,997 | 369,988 | – | – | – | – | | D: Improve the Effectiveness of Multilateral Aid | 1,054,780 | 937,676 | 1,247,422 | 1,599,045 | – | – | – | – | | E: Develop a Global Partnership for Development | 204,699 | 283,301 | 355,850 | 385,239 | – | – | – | – | | F: Central Departments | 74,719 | 239,346 | 314,977 | 83,307 | – | – | – | – | | G: Environment Transformation Fund | – | 50,000 | 100,000 | 250,000 | – | – | – | – | | Multiple Objectives | 136,018 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Gibraltar Social Insurance Fund | 15,315 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Spending in Annually Managed Expenditure | 85,896 | 340,398 | 379,749 | 314,280 | – | – | – | – | | H: Programmes Contributing to Multiple Objectives | 117,621 | 150,484 | 145,931 | 6,020 | – | – | – | – | | I: Grants to the International Finance Facility for Immunisation | (38,725) | 189,914 | 233,818 | 224,481 | – | – | – | – | | J: Provision for Advance Market Commitment | – | – | – | 83,779 | – | – | – | – | | Central departments | 7,000 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | EU Research Grants | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | RFR2: Conflict Prevention | 42,672 | 41,792 | 16,715 | 15,652 | – | – | – | – | | A: Conflict Prevention and Stabilisation | 42,672 | 41,792 | 16,715 | 15,652 | – | – | – | – | | Total | 3,857,712 | 4,353,841 | 5,020,514 | 5,334,315 | – | – | – | – | Table B.1: Public Spending (continued)

| New basis from 2011-12 | 2007-08 Outturn | 2008-09 Outturn | 2009-10 Outturn | 2010-11 Outturn | 2011-12 Outturn | 2012-13 Plans | 2013-14 Plans | 2014-15 Plans | |------------------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|---------------|---------------|---------------| | Resources (excluding capital grants) | | | | | | | | | | Spending in Departmental Expenditure Limits | | | | | | | | | | A: CSC (NDPB) (net) scholarship relating to developing countries | – | – | – | – | 18,189 | 21,390 | 21,279 | 22,279 | | B: Wealth Creation | – | – | – | – | 421,231 | 485,463 | 828,155 | 878,624 | | C: Climate Change | – | – | – | – | 157,831 | 362,252 | 290,686 | 292,050 | | D: Governance and Security | – | – | – | – | 720,291 | 602,045 | 711,852 | 680,217 | | E: Direct Delivery of Millennium Development Goals | – | – | – | – | 2,183,444 | 2,733,683 | 4,037,376 | 4,250,497 | | F: Global Partnerships | – | – | – | – | 1,529,331 | 940,874 | 1,106,860 | 1,070,700 | | G: Total Operating Costs | – | – | – | – | 207,944 | 242,853 | 98,420 | 101,589 | | H: Central Programmes | – | – | – | – | (13,128) | 3,566 | 1,320 | 1,220 | | I: Joint Conflict Pool | – | – | – | – | 21,570 | 68,400 | | | | J: Independent Commission for Aid Impact (NDPB) (net) | – | – | – | – | 2,116 | 2,635 | | | | K: CSC (NDPB) (net) scholarship relating to developed countries | – | – | – | – | 588 | – | 537 | 537 | | Assistance to UK overseas Territories | – | – | – | – | – | – | 45,000 | 45,000 | | No Specific Pillar | – | – | – | – | 185,591 | – | – | – | | Departmental Unallocated Provision | – | – | – | – | 114,693 | 974,001 | 523,273 | | | Non-Voted | | | | | | | | | | L: European Union Attributed Aid | – | – | – | – | 934,125 | 855,000 | 910,000 | 927,000 | | Spending in Annually Managed Expenditure | – | – | – | – | 43,960 | 93,036 | 58,991 | 94,471 | | Voted | | | | | | | | | | M: Wealth Creation | – | – | – | – | (2,723) | (2,087) | (1,480) | (932) | | N: Direct Delivery of Millennium Development Goals | – | – | – | – | 41,052 | 50,379 | 64,910 | 96,341 | | O: Total Operating Costs | – | – | – | – | (3,927) | (2,543) | (3,139) | 262 | | P: Central Programmes | – | – | – | – | 9,558 | 47,287 | (1,300) | (1,200) | | Total | – | – | – | – | 6,227,492 | 6,711,481 | 9,084,477 | 8,887,457 |

### Table B.1: Public Spending (continued)

| CAPITAL | 2007-08 Outturn | 2008-09 Outturn | 2009-10 Outturn | 2010-11 Outturn | 2011-12 Plans | 2012-13 Plans | 2013-14 Plans | 2014-15 Plans | |---------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------| | Resources (including capital grants) | | | | | | | | | | RfR1: Eliminating poverty in poorer countries | 739,254 | 876,174 | 1,352,642 | 1,758,696 | – | – | – | – | | Of which: | | | | | | | | | | Spending in Departmental Expenditure Limits | 739,254 | 876,174 | 1,352,642 | 1,758,696 | – | – | – | – | | A: Bilateral aid to Africa | 16,357 | 2,323 | 110,313 | 168,110 | – | – | – | – | | B: Bilateral Aid to South Asia | 4,538 | 1,058 | 55,796 | 85,470 | – | – | – | – | | C: Bilateral Aid to the Rest of the World | 9,662 | 21,165 | 13,631 | 21,234 | – | – | – | – | | D: Improve the Effectiveness of Multilateral Aid | 691,123 | 822,327 | 1,060,382 | 1,303,643 | – | – | – | – | | E: Develop a Global Partnership for Development | – | 50,000 | 124,564 | 191,114 | – | – | – | – | | F: Central Departments | 17,574 | (20,699) | (12,044) | (10,875) | – | – | – | – | | G: Environment Transformation Fund | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Multiple Objectives | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Gibraltar Social Insurance Fund | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Spending in Annually Managed Expenditure | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | H: Programmes Contributing to Multiple Objectives | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | I: Grants to the International Finance Facility for Immunisation | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | J: Provision for Advance Market Commitment | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Central departments | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | EU Research Grants | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | RfR2: Conflict Prevention | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | A: Conflict Prevention and Stabilisation | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Total | 739,254 | 876,174 | 1,352,642 | 1,758,696 | – | – | – | – |

### Table B.1: Public Spending (continued)

| CAPITAL New basis from 2011-12 | 2007-08 Outturn | 2008-09 Outturn | 2009-10 Outturn | 2010-11 Outturn | 2011-12 Outturn | 2012-13 Plans | 2013-14 Plans | 2014-15 Plans | |-------------------------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|---------------|---------------|---------------| | Resources (including capital grants) | | | | | | | | | | Spending in Departmental Expenditure Limits | | | | | | | | | | A: CSC (NDPB) (net) scholarship relating to developing countries | – | – | – | – | 1,645,907 | 1,635,000 | 1,924,000 | 1,994,815 | | B: Wealth Creation | – | – | – | – | 127,995 | 129,798 | 352,630 | 393,900 | | C: Climate Change | – | – | – | – | 67,084 | 113,719 | 39,000 | 44,000 | | D: Governance and Security | – | – | – | – | 18,508 | 14,182 | 4,290 | 4,510 | | E: Direct Delivery of Millenium Development Goals | – | – | – | – | 117,353 | 141,643 | 164,880 | 144,205 | | F: Global Partnerships | – | – | – | – | 1,323,535 | 1,104,182 | 1,286,000 | 1,349,000 | | G: Total Operating Costs | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | H: Central Programmes | – | – | – | – | (8,568) | – | 7,000 | 8,000 | | I: Joint Conflict Pool | – | – | – | – | – | – | 70,200 | 51,200 | | J: Independent Commission for Aid Impact (NDPB) (net) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | K: CSC (NDPB) (net) scholarship relating to developing countries | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | No Specific Pillar | – | – | – | – | – | 100,119 | – | – | | Departmental Unallocated Provision | – | – | – | – | – | 31,357 | – | – | | **Non-Voted** | | | | | | | | | | L: European Union Attributed Aid | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | **Spending in Annually Managed Expenditure** | | | | | | | | | | **Voted** | | | | | | | | | | M: Wealth Creation | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | N: Direct Delivery of Millenium Development Goals | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | O: Total Operating Costs | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | P: Central Programmes | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | **Total** | – | – | – | – | 1,645,907 | 1,635,000 | 1,924,000 | 1,994,815 | Table B.2: Public spending control

This table sets out DFID’s outturn for 2011-12, by subhead detail against the total budgetary control limits approved by Parliament at Main Estimate and at final Supplementary Estimate.

| Resources | Main Estimate | Supplementary Estimate | Forecast Outturn | Variance from Main Estimate | Variance from Supplementary Estimate | |-----------|---------------|------------------------|------------------|-----------------------------|--------------------------------------| | **Total Voted & Non-Voted Expenditure** | 6,486,340 | 6,209,194 | 6,183,532 | 302,808 | 25,662 | | A: CSC (NDPB) (net) scholarship relating to developing countries | 19,111 | 19,111 | 18,189 | 922 | 922 | | B: Wealth Creation | 616,226 | 514,441 | 421,231 | 194,995 | 93,210 | | C: Climate Change | 196,797 | 237,547 | 157,831 | 38,966 | 79,716 | | D: Governance and Security | 680,125 | 673,796 | 720,291 | (40,166) | (46,495) | | E: Direct Delivery of Millennium Development Goals | 2,792,892 | 3,063,497 | 2,183,444 | 609,448 | 880,053 | | F: Global Partnerships | 987,023 | 576,247 | 1,529,331 | (542,308) | (953,084) | | G: Total Operating Costs | 232,200 | 221,200 | 207,944 | 24,256 | 13,256 | | H: Central Programmes | 12,770 | 12,770 | (13,128) | 25,898 | 25,898 | | I: Joint Conflict Pool | 23,920 | 19,420 | 21,570 | 2,350 | (2,150) | | J: Independent Commission for Aid Impact (NDPB) (net) | – | 2,635 | 2,116 | (2,116) | 519 | | K: CSC (NDPB) (net) scholarship relating to developing countries | 630 | 630 | 588 | 42 | 42 | | **Departmental Unallocated Provision** | 88,646 | – | – | 88,646 | – | | **Non-Voted** | | | | | | | L: European Union Attributed Aid | 836,000 | 867,900 | 934,125 | (98,125) | (66,225) | | **Spending in Annually Managed Expenditure** | | | | | | | **Voted** | 218,535 | 211,031 | 43,960 | 174,575 | 167,071 | | M: Wealth Creation | (2,705) | (2,705) | (2,723) | 18 | 18 | | N: Direct Delivery of Millennium Development Goals | 226,872 | 182,253 | 41,052 | 185,820 | 141,201 | | O: Total Operating Costs | (3,632) | (3,528) | (3,927) | 295 | 399 | | P: Central Programmes | (2,000) | 35,011 | 9,558 | (11,558) | 25,453 | | **Total** | 6,704,875 | 6,420,225 | 6,227,492 | 477,383 | 192,733 |

### Table B.2: Public spending control (continued)

| Capital | Voted Expenditure | Non-Voted | Departmental Unallocated Provision | |---------|-------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------| | | Main Estimate | Supplementary Estimate | Forecast Outturn | Variance from Main Estimate | Variance from Supplementary Estimate | | A: CSC (NDPB) (net) scholarship relating to developing countries | 1,394,000 | 1,658,105 | 1,645,907 | (251,907) | 12,198 | | B: Wealth Creation | 105,725 | 97,472 | 127,995 | (22,270) | (30,523) | | C: Climate Change | 12,500 | 46,605 | 67,084 | (54,584) | (20,479) | | D: Governance and Security | 4,590 | 27,290 | 18,508 | (13,918) | 8,782 | | E: Direct Delivery of Millennium Development Goals | 244,408 | 235,961 | 117,353 | 127,055 | 118,608 | | F: Global Partnerships | 1,018,777 | 1,242,777 | 1,323,535 | (304,758) | (80,758) | | G: Total Operating Costs | - | - | - | - | - | | H: Central Programmes | 8,000 | 8,000 | (8,568) | 16,568 | 16,568 | | I: Joint Conflict Pool | - | - | - | - | - | | J: Independent Commission for Aid Impact (NDPB) (net) | - | - | - | - | - | | K: CSC (NDPB) (net) scholarship relating to developing countries | - | - | - | - | - | | Departmental Unallocated Provision | - | - | - | - | - | | Non-Voted | - | - | - | - | - | | Spending in Annually Managed Expenditure | - | (1,600) | - | - | (1,600) | | Voted | - | - | - | - | - | | M: Wealth Creation | - | - | - | - | - | | N: Direct Delivery of Millennium Development Goals | - | - | - | - | - | | O: Total Operating Costs | - | - | - | - | - | | P: Central Programmes | - | (1,600) | - | - | (1,600) | | Total | 1,394,000 | 1,656,505 | 1,645,907 | (251,907) | 10,598 | Table B.3: Capital Employed

The table below summarises the Department for Internal Development’s Statement of Financial Position. DFID was required to adopt International Financial Reporting Standards, with effect from year ended 31 March 2010. Under IAS 1 it is required to restate comparatives for the prior year on an IFRS basis. No restatement was required to Budgets or Estimates, therefore the table below shows 2008-09 data as published at the time.

PES (2011) 02 requires departments to publish plan data for the next three years. The most significant values on DFID’s Statement of Financial Position are based on values provided by external parties, such as investment values. No plan information relating to future performance of these factors is available. In addition, other areas such as provisions and payables \<1 year (including promissory notes) will vary depending on the programmes funded over the next four years and funding mechanisms used. As a result DFID has had to make assumptions to determine a future value for a number of areas within the statement of financial position. No forecast plan information is published on COINs. Should this be required at any stage we will again use best information and facts available at the time.

| Assets and liabilities on the statement of financial position at end of year: | 2007-08 Outturn | 2008-09 Outturn | 2009-10 Outturn | 2010-11 Outturn | 2011-12 Outturn | 2012-13 Plans | 2013-14 Plans | 2014-15 Plans | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | **Assets** | | | | | | | | | | **Non-current assets** | | | | | | | | | | Property, plant and equipment | 113,008 | 113,975 | 92,724 | 87,085 | 83,166 | 85,613 | 83,990 | 82,445 | | Of which: | | | | | | | | | | Land and buildings (including leasehold improvements) | 59,012 | 61,338 | 61,111 | 61,796 | 55,234 | 61,180 | 60,874 | 60,570 | | Vehicles | 2,575 | 2,662 | 2,748 | 2,256 | 1,879 | 1,933 | 1,740 | 1,566 | | Office and domestic furniture and equipment | 9,912 | 9,520 | 8,885 | 8,815 | 7,934 | 8,640 | 8,553 | 8,468 | | IT equipment & systems | 10,587 | 28,335 | 11,205 | 6,617 | 4,177 | 5,360 | 4,823 | 4,341 | | Assets in the course of construction | 30,922 | 12,120 | 8,775 | 7,601 | 13,942 | 8,500 | 8,000 | 7,500 | | Intangible | 1,105 | 614 | 24,602 | 21,867 | 21,380 | 17,321 | 15,415 | 13,720 | | Investments | 3,322,561 | 4,125,643 | 3,813,655 | 3,867,211 | 4,048,864 | 4,142,653 | 4,287,646 | 4,437,714 | | Trade and other receivables > 1 year | 219,743 | 188,224 | 128,964 | 111,419 | 79,703 | 79,781 | 65,738 | 53,861 | | **Current assets** | | | | | | | | | | Financial Assets | – | – | – | – | 1,678 | – | – | – | | Trade and other receivables < 1 year | 157,340 | 122,429 | 361,771 | 157,344 | 71,768 | 106,846 | 104,295 | 102,129 | | Cash and cash equivalents | (17,377) | 243,175 | 4,199 | 3,605 | 2,880 | 3,500 | 3,500 | 3,500 | | **Liabilities** | | | | | | | | | | Current < 1 year | (685,591) | (1,887,288) | (1,758,952) | (2,505,030) | (2,855,959) | (3,012,500) | (3,262,500) | (3,300,000) | | Non-current > 1 year | (582,403) | (36,818) | (46,454) | (46,766) | (46,210) | (45,010) | – | – | | Provisions | (336,863) | (514,667) | (674,280) | (914,826) | (938,402) | (1,050,000) | (1,000,000) | (1,000,000) | | **Capital employed within the main department** | 2,191,523 | 2,355,287 | 1,946,229 | 781,909 | 468,868 | 328,204 | 298,084 | 393,369 | | NDPB net assets | – | – | – | – | 766 | – | – | – | | **Total capital employed in departmental group** | 2,191,523 | 2,355,287 | 1,946,229 | 781,909 | 469,634 | 328,204 | 298,084 | 393,369 | Table B.4: Administration budgets

The table below shows published administration budget outturn for the past five years (including year just ended) and Spending Review plans for the next three years.

In accordance with the Business Plan and Structural Reform Plan DFID has moved its internal basis of monitoring to a five pillar approach. The headings on the Estimate and focus of plans have been aligned to these pillars. It is not considered appropriate to restate prior years outturns on this basis as these pillars were not used for strategic decision making.

DFID has been reporting in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards, with effect from 31 March 2010, and was required to restate its outturn for year ended 31 March 2009 within its resource accounts. No adjustments were required to Estimates or budgets and as such outturn included below, has not been restated.

In addition, outturn for 2007-08 was restated within the resource accounts to reflect the reclassification of costs of overseas frontline staff from administration to programme expenses. The effect of this was to reduce outturn against the administration budget in 2007-08. This is in accordance with guidance from HM treasury, which states that Budgets and Estimates are not required to be restated. As a result the table below agrees to published data at the time.

| Headings for 2007-08 to 2010-11 | £000 | |---------------------------------|------| | | 2007-08 | 2008-09 | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 Plans | 2013-14 Plans | 2014-15 Plans | | **Eliminating Poverty in Poorer Countries (DEL)** | | | | | | | | | | A: Bilateral Aid to Africa | 51,432 | 22,324 | 19,370 | 19,343 | – | – | – | – | | B: Bilateral Aid to South Asia | 30,707 | 8,611 | 12,203 | 10,341 | – | – | – | – | | C: Bilateral Aid to the Rest of the World | 18,142 | 15,139 | 12,679 | 10,439 | – | – | – | – | | D: Improve the Effectiveness of Multilateral Aid | 16,138 | 15,734 | 14,603 | 10,529 | – | – | – | – | | E: Develop a Global Partnership for Development | 27,286 | 19,827 | 19,978 | 20,063 | – | – | – | – | | F: Central Departments | 69,628 | 78,673 | 76,220 | 75,957 | – | – | – | – | | G: Environment Transformation Fund | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | **Spending In Annually Managed Expenditure (AME)** | | | | | | | | | | H: Programmes Contributing to Multiple objectives | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | I: Grants to the International Finance Facility for Immunisation | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | J: Provision for Advance Market Commitment | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | L: Central Departments | 7,000 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | **Total RFR1** | 220,333 | 160,308 | 155,053 | 146,672 | – | – | – | – | | **Conflict Prevention (DEL)** | | | | | | | | | | A: Conflict Prevention and Stabilisation | 2,904 | 3,195 | 3,996 | 5,423 | – | – | – | – | | **Total RFR2** | 2,904 | 3,195 | 3,996 | 5,423 | – | – | – | – | | **Total RFR 1 & 2** | 223,237 | 163,503 | 159,049 | 152,095 | – | – | – | – | Table B.4: Administration budgets (continued)

| | 2007-08 Outturn | 2008-09 Outturn | 2009-10 Outturn | 2010-11 Outturn | 2011-12 Outturn | 2012-13 Plans | 2013-14 Plans | 2014-15 Plans | |----------------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|---------------|---------------|---------------| | **New basis from 2011-12** | | | | | | | | | | **Resources** | | | | | | | | | | **Spending in Departmental Expenditure Limits** | | | | | | | | | | A: CSC (NDPB) (net) scholarship relating to developing countries | – | – | – | – | 1,942 | 1,980 | 1,721 | 1,721 | | B: Wealth Creation | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | C: Climate Change | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | D: Governance and Security | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | E: Direct Delivery of Millenium Development Goals | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | F: Global Partnerships | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | G: Total Operating Costs | – | – | – | – | 120,989 | 128,753 | 121,545 | 112,174 | | H: Central Programmes | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | I: Joint Conflict Pool | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | J: Independent Commission for Aid Impact (NDPB) (net) | – | – | – | – | 303 | 398 | – | – | | K: CSC (NDPB) (net) scholarship relating to developing countries | – | – | – | – | 111 | – | 93 | 93 | | Departmental Unallocated Provision | – | – | – | – | – | 1,869 | 2,455 | 3,026 | | **Non-Voted** | | | | | | | | | | L: European Union Attributed Aid | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | **Spending in Annually Managed Expenditure** | | | | | | | | | | M: Wealth Creation | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | N: Direct Delivery of Millenium Development Goals | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | O: Total Operating Costs | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | P: Central Programmes | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | **Total** | – | – | – | – | 123,345 | 133,000 | 125,814 | 117,014 | Table B.5: Staff In Post

| | Mar-09 | Mar-10 | Mar-11 | Mar-12 | |----------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------| | Home Civil Servants | 1,600 | 1,573 | 1,567 | 1,562 |

Table 5 shows the number of full-time equivalent civil service staff employed by DFID in the UK and overseas, including those working overseas on aid projects. Part-time staff are counted according to percentage of time worked.

Note 8 to the Accounts shows the average number of full-time equivalents employed during the year and includes locally engaged staff overseas, as required by the FREM. This is why the totals differ.

**Administration Consulting and Administration Temporary Staff**

Total spend by DFID during 2011-12 on administration consultancy was £4,720,411 and the spend on other administration temporary staff was £1,067,701.

The numbers in the table and note above, consist of Core Department only. No staff are employed by the Department’s NDPBs. DFID’s available programme resources are allocated to country or regional specific aid programmes, international aid programmes or other programmes in the annual resources and results cycle. This establishes an aid framework allocation, approved by the Secretary of State which provides divisions within DFID with a firm budget for the current year.

Table A.1 sets out the department’s actual programme resource outturn for 2011/12, and for 2012/13 onwards indicative planning figures are presented. These figures were informed by the government spending review, however these plans may be subject to revision as DFID strategy is continually reviewed to ensure aid is used most effectively. Figures may not sum exactly to totals due to rounding.

### Table A.1 DFID Allocations by Programme

| Programme | 2011/12 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | 2013/14 | |-----------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | | Total Programme Outturn | Of Which: Front Line Delivery Outturn | Programme Plans | Programme Plans | | | (£’000) | (£’000) | (£’000) | (£’000) | | **AFRICA** | | | | | | East And Central Africa | | | | | | Africa Regional Department | 77,781 | 2,234 | 134,043 | 218,000 | | DFID Burundi | 9,211 | 210 | 0 | 0 | | DFID Ethiopia | 327,098 | 3,031 | 283,037 | 345,000 | | DFID Kenya | 98,115 | 3,793 | 110,000 | 150,000 | | DFID Rwanda | 76,602 | 1,916 | 75,000 | 85,000 | | DFID Tanzania | 142,900 | 2,377 | 160,050 | 165,000 | | DFID Uganda | 77,317 | 1,996 | 95,479 | 95,000 | | DFID Sudan | 33,298 | 2,856 | 48,336 | 44,000 | | DFID South Sudan | 79,729 | 1,771 | 84,974 | 96,000 | | DFID Somalia | 102,865 | 0 | 64,500 | 80,000 | | **Total** | 1,024,916 | 20,184 | 1,055,419 | 1,278,000 | | Africa Directorate | 1,573 | 361 | 600 | 0 | | DFID DRC | 146,665 | 3,973 | 145,300 | 220,000 | | DFID Malawi | 70,791 | 1,808 | 87,578 | 95,000 | | DFID Mozambique | 89,536 | 2,066 | 77,000 | 84,500 | | DFID Southern Africa | 47,211 | 2,747 | 65,381 | 19,000 | | DFID Zambia | 45,260 | 1,935 | 55,308 | 62,000 | | DFID Zimbabwe | 89,887 | 1,878 | 83,000 | 94,000 | | DFID Ghana | 80,440 | 1,455 | 87,000 | 100,000 | | DFID Nigeria | 176,478 | 5,007 | 185,000 | 305,000 | | DFID Sierra Leone and Liberia | 65,734 | 1,913 | 66,000 | 85,000 | | **Total** | 813,576 | 23,144 | 852,167 | 1,064,500 | | **AFRICA TOTAL** | 1,838,492 | 43,328 | 1,907,586 | 2,342,500 | | Country/Region | 2011/12 Total Programme Outturn (£’000) | 2011/12 Of Which: Front Line Delivery Outturn (£’000) | 2012/13 Programme Plans (£’000) | 2013/14 Programme Plans (£’000) | |---------------|----------------------------------------|---------------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------| | **Asia, Caribbean and Overseas Territories** | | | | | | DFID Cambodia | 9,674 | 0 | 7,890 | 0 | | DFID Bangladesh | 205,547 | 2,745 | 197,226 | 290,000 | | DFID Burma | 37,260 | 926 | 43,001 | 55,100 | | DFID India | 273,498 | 5,105 | 263,700 | 280,000 | | DFID Nepal | 64,592 | 2,071 | 62,268 | 103,250 | | DFID Sri Lanka JPD | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | DFID Vietnam | 32,166 | 952 | 16,610 | 16,499 | | DFID Indonesia | 11,321 | 759 | 14,962 | 16,497 | | Asia Division London | 8,491 | 365 | 20,400 | 15,000 | | DFID Caribbean | 18,933 | 1,705 | 19,750 | 18,750 | | Overseas Territories Department | 99,422 | 1,747 | 135,101 | 115,200 | | Director Asia and Regional Team | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Global Development Partnerships Programme | 4,055 | 1,022 | 30 | 0 | | **Asia, Caribbean and Overseas Territories TOTAL** | 764,986 | 17,396 | 780,938 | 910,296 | | **Western Asia and Stabilisation Division** | | | | | | Asia Directors Office | 156 | 156 | 0 | 0 | | DFID Afghanistan | 162,521 | 8,653 | 180,445 | 178,000 | | DFID Pakistan | 220,616 | 4,772 | 266,620 | 412,000 | | Stabilisation Unit | 15,066 | 6,016 | 5,000 | 0 | | DFID Tajikistan | 8,635 | 574 | 14,000 | 23,000 | | DFID Kyrgyzstan | 6,548 | 542 | 0 | 0 | | **Western Asia and Stabilisation Division TOTAL** | 413,542 | 20,713 | 466,065 | 613,000 | | **Security & Humanitarian and Middle East Division** | | | | | | Middle East, North Africa Advisory and Corporate (MENARC) | 7,453 | 191 | 30,780 | 2,000 | | DFID Libya | 10,954 | 822 | 1,545 | 0 | | Conflict, Humanitarian and Security Department | 251,553 | 756 | 127,348 | 232,900 | | DFID Yemen | 32,347 | 633 | 55,830 | 69,357 | | DFID Iraq | 2,986 | 363 | 0 | 0 | | DFID Jerusalem and Palestinian Programme | 92,567 | 1,355 | 85,699 | 89,497 | | Conflict Funds | 1,350 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | **Security & Humanitarian and Middle East Division TOTAL** | 399,210 | 4,119 | 301,202 | 393,754 | | **Country/Regional Programme Total** | 3,416,230 | 85,556 | 3,455,791 | 4,259,550 | | Programme | 2011/12 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | 2013/14 | |-----------------------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | | (£’000) | (£’000) | (£’000) | (£’000) | | **International Finance Division** | | | | | | International Directors’ Office | 930 | 16 | 1,747 | 92,540 | | Private Sector Department | 86,550 | 25 | 122,362 | 210,000 | | World Bank Programmes | 953,393 | 0 | 743,800 | 897,000 | | Regional Development Bank Programmes | 266,730 | 0 | 268,700 | 288,500 | | Debt Relief | 90,569 | 0 | 101,982 | 100,000 | | Other Financial Institutions | 0 | 0 | 20,000 | 10,000 | | Global Funds | 396,493 | 0 | 422,860 | 931,260 | | **Total International Finance Division** | 1,794,665 | 41 | 1,681,451 | 2,529,300 | | **International Relations Division** | | | | | | EC Attribution | 934,000 | 0 | 855,000 | 910,000 | | United Nations and Commonwealth | 306,832 | 13 | 288,015 | 312,800 | | Global Partnerships | 2,236 | 742 | 31,844 | 546,000 | | European Development Funds | 421,111 | 0 | 496,000 | 50,000 | | Balkans | 4,350 | 495 | 3,431 | 0 | | **International Relations Division Total** | 1,668,529 | 1,250 | 1,674,290 | 1,818,800 | | **International Divisions Total** | 3,463,194 | 1,291 | 3,355,741 | 4,348,100 | | **Policy Division** | | | | | | Civil Society Department | 201,337 | 244 | 212,449 | 204,469 | | PRD Cabinet | 2,787 | 0 | 41,541 | 16,435 | | Governance and Social Development Group | 16,828 | 459 | 32,562 | 23,222 | | Growth and Resilience Dept | 16,293 | 789 | 25,437 | 40,350 | | Human Development Group | 128,331 | 1,000 | 91,125 | 232,850 | | Climate and Environment Group | 204,364 | 839 | 284,578 | 80,000 | | Trade Policy Unit | 6,583 | 44 | 11,500 | 15,000 | | **Policy Division TOTAL** | 576,523 | 3,374 | 699,192 | 612,326 | | **Research and Evidence Division** | | | | | | Evaluation Department | 3,382 | 0 | 4,656 | 3,800 | | Research and Evidence | 244,277 | 2,174 | 224,788 | 333,925 | | Chief Economist Office | 2,313 | 0 | 5,940 | 5,415 | | **Research and Evidence Division TOTAL** | 249,971 | 2,174 | 235,384 | 343,140 | | **Policy and Research TOTAL** | 826,494 | 5,548 | 934,576 | 955,466 | | **Corporate Performance Group** | 39,380 | 673 | 48,386 | 92,094 | | **Return of Unspent Funds** | -29,744 | | | | | **TOTAL** | 7,715,554 | 93,067 | 7,794,494 | 9,655,210 |

Notes: The Balkans programme will end in 2012/13 with the closure of the DFID Kosovo office in December 2012. ANNEX B:

Annual Reporting of Statistical Information

B.1 The International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006 requires the Secretary of State for International Development to report to Parliament on an annual basis. The schedule to the Act sets out the statistical reporting that is required. This information is published each autumn for the preceding year in DFID’s publication Statistics on International Development. Provisional figures for 2011 are provided in the following tables.

B.2 The statistical reporting requirements of the Act are itemised below with the tables within this Annex showing where the corresponding information can be located. Information is included for the most recent period and each of the four periods before.

| Act Schedule | Table Number | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------| | Total UK bilateral aid broken down by: | | | Debt relief, in turn split by cancelled export credits | Table B.1 | | Region | Table B.2 | | Country including humanitarian assistance breakdown | Table B.2 | | Sector | Table B.3 | | Country as a percentage of UK bilateral aid | Table B.2 | | Percentage and amount to low income countries | Table B.2 | | Percentage of gross national income (GNI) | Table B.1 | | UK multilateral aid broken down by: | | | European Union | Table B.1 | | World Bank | Table B.1 | | United Nations and its agencies | Table B.1 | | Other multilateral organisations | Table B.1 | | UK imputed share(^{36}) of the aggregate amount of multilateral ODA provided by the bodies to which the UK contributed such assistance broken down by: | | | Country | Table B.4 | | Percentage and amount to low income countries | Table B.4 |

(^{36}) UK imputed share is the share of all multilateral expenditure in developing countries which can be attributed to the UK.

### Table B.1: Total UK Net Official Development Assistance (ODA)

| | £ millions | |--------------------------|------------| | | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011[1] | | **Total Bilateral ODA** | | | | | | | as a % of GNI | 0.20 | 0.27 | 0.33 | 0.35 | 0.33 | | of which: Administration costs[2] | 272 | 256 | 254 | 238 | 302 | | Debt Relief | 35 | 304 | 27 | 106 | 22 | | Export Credit Guarantee Agency | 1,776 | 4 | 280 | 7 | 91 | | **Total Multilateral ODA** | | | | | | | as a % of GNI | 0.15 | 0.16 | 0.18 | 0.22 | 0.23 | | of which: Total European Commission | 1,071 | 1,124 | 1,245 | 1,301 | 1,415 | | Total World Bank | 493 | 624 | 555 | 933 | 1,218 | | Total UN Agencies | 288 | 265 | 297 | 371 | 347 | | Total Other Organisations[3] | 270 | 295 | 394 | 656 | 586 | | **TOTAL ODA** | 4,921 | 6,356 | 7,223 | 8,452 | 8,570 | | as a % of GNI | 0.36 | 0.43 | 0.51 | 0.57 | 0.56 |

[1] 2011 data is provisional. Final 2011 ODA will be published in Statistics on International Development 2012 in October. [2] Includes Front Line Delivery Costs. This is in line with OECD DAC Statistical Reporting Directives. [3] Includes Regional Development Banks and other multilateral agencies on the DAC List of Multilateral Organisations. | Country | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011[^1] | |-------------------------|----------------------|------|------|------|------|----------| | **Africa:** | | | | | | | | Algeria | | 285 | 1,166| 2,311| 1,425| – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.03 | – | – | | Angola[^1] | | 5,017| 5,278| 2,842| 10,800| 223 | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | 61 | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.18 | 0.13 | 0.06 | 0.21 | 0.00 | – | | Benin[^1] | | – | – | 19 | – | 45 | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | –0.00 | – | 0.00 | – | 0.00 | – | | Botswana | | 205 | 580 | 589 | 686 | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | – | – | | Burkina Faso[^1] | | -175 | 88 | 128 | 65 | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | -0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | – | – | | Burundi[^1] | | 7,715| 7,832| 9,232| 13,041| 11,033 | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 2,798 | 1,498| 1,101| 2,286| 372 | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.28 | 0.19 | 0.20 | 0.25 | 0.22 | – | | Cameroon | | 25,854| 1,608| 1,447| 667 | 258 | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.92 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.01 | – | | Cape Verde | | 270 | 442 | 461 | 583 | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | – | – | | Central African Republic[^1] | | 2,523| 3,128| 1,562| 1,955| – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | 2,216| 1,511| 1,502| – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.03 | 0.04 | – | – | | Chad[^1] | | 4,562| 6,362| 3,566| 1,852| 240 | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 4,562 | 6,362| 3,566| 1,839| 240 | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.08 | 0.04 | 0.00 | – | | Comoros[^1] | | – | – | – | 78 | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | – | – | – | 0.00 | – | – | | Congo | | 100 | 11 | 50,991| 751 | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.98 | – | – | – | | Congo (Dem Rep[^1]) | | 60,309| 106,588| 144,340| 162,380| 145,813 | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 34,334 | 38,037| 61,978| 42,482| 31,256| – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 2.15 | 2.63 | 3.05 | 3.13 | 2.91 | – | | Cote d’Ivoire | | -18,544| 188 | 96 | 16,809| 7,950 | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 430 | – | – | – | – | 7,950 | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | -0.66 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.32 | 0.16 | – | | Djibouti[^1] | | – | – | 1,504| 6 | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | – | – | 0.03 | 0.00 | – | – | | Egypt | | 65 | 4,842| 22,817| 5,821| – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.00 | 0.12 | 0.48 | 0.11 | – | – | | Eritrea[^1] | | 3,198| 3,079| 4,129| 3,568| 5,202 | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 2,783 | 1,686| 4,084| 3,296| 5,202| – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.10 | – | | Ethiopia[^1] | | 145,448| 140,209| 219,537| 263,500| 343,640 | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 4,802 | 25,999| 42,721| 28,607| 53,630| – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 5.20 | 3.46 | 4.64 | 5.08 | 6.87 | – | | Country | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011[2] | £ thousand | |------------------|----------------------|------|------|------|------|---------|------------| | Gabon | – | – | – | 104 | – | – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | – | – | – | 0.00 | – | – | | Gambia[1] | 2,513 | 2,084| 2,388| 1,282| 735 | – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.01 | – | | Ghana | 75,954 | 83,331| 98,546| 107,861| 78,413| – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 250 | 1,199| 403 | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 2.71 | 2.06 | 2.08 | 2.08 | 1.57 | – | | Guinea[1] | 540 | 641 | 557 | – | – | – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 350 | 88 | 115 | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.01 | – | – | – | | Guinea-Bissau[1] | 25 | 72 | 83 | 45 | – | – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | – | – | | Kenya[1] | 55,612 | 50,506| 84,007| 68,136| 81,014| – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 13,157 | 13,491| 15,192| 4,960 | 21,047| – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 1.99 | 1.25 | 1.78 | 1.31 | 1.62 | – | | Lesotho[2] | 4,033 | 4,372| 5,224| 3,121| 11,089| – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.14 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.06 | 0.02 | – | | Liberia[3] | 6,176 | 17,907| 21,383| 16,563| 19,559| – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 1,199 | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.22 | 0.44 | 0.45 | 0.32 | 0.39 | – | | Libya[4] | 145 | 630 | 1,191| 1,023| 6,010 | – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.12 | – | | Madagascar[1] | 640 | 1,338| 832 | –188 | – | – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 700 | 420 | 832 | 874 | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.02 | -0.00 | – | – | | Malawi[1] | 66,820 | 81,164| 71,510| 95,849| 60,598| – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 2,998 | 1,448| 813 | 1,055 | 6,196 | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 2.39 | 2.01 | 1.51 | 1.85 | 1.21 | – | | Mali[5] | -220 | – | 19 | 32 | – | – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | -0.01 | – | 0.00 | 0.00 | – | – | | Mauritania[1] | 35 | – | 499 | – | – | – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | -5 | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.00 | – | 0.01 | – | – | – | | Mauritius | 55 | 332 | 13,291| 3,581| – | – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.28 | 0.07 | – | – | | Morocco | 170 | 3,692| 3,047| 2,085| – | – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.04 | – | – | | Mozambique[3] | 57,810 | 109,368| 35,141| 67,612| 118,964| – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 1,179 | 1,161| 499 | 615 | 1,250 | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 2.07 | 2.70 | 0.74 | 1.30 | 2.38 | – | | Namibia | 440 | 558 | 442 | 363 | – | – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | 50 | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | – | – | | Niger[1] | 1,179 | 4,062| 3,969| 2,059| 368 | – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 445 | 2,205| 2,074| 2,059| 368 | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.04 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.04 | 0.01 | – | | Country | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011[1] | |-------------------------|----------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|---------| | Nigeria | 142,889 | 26,093| 120,927| 171,335| 158,316| | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 11 | - | - | 499 | - | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 5.10 | 0.64 | 2.56 | 3.30 | 3.16 | | Rwanda[1] | 47,442 | 55,204| 57,522| 68,745| 84,463| | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 95 | - | - | - | - | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 1.69 | 1.36 | 1.22 | 1.32 | 1.69 | | Senegal[1] | 5,762 | 536 | 4,174 | 602 | - | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | - | - | - | - | - | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.21 | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.01 | - | | Seychelles | -430 | 39 | 38 | 26 | - | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | - | - | - | - | - | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | -0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | - | | Sierra Leone[1] | 44,029 | 51,174| 51,389| 54,902| 45,451| | of which Humanitarian Assistance | - | - | - | 142 | - | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 1.57 | 1.26 | 1.09 | 1.06 | 0.91 | | Somalia[1] | 13,177 | 42,077| 28,009| 40,359| 93,144| | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 5,757 | 25,579| 13,790| 23,569| 73,294| | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.47 | 1.04 | 0.59 | 0.78 | 1.86 | | South Africa | -11,723 | 62,726| 43,105| 25,440| 26,442| | of which Humanitarian Assistance | - | 448 | -13 | 6 | - | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | -0.42 | 1.55 | 0.91 | 0.49 | 0.53 | | St Helena & Dependencies| 20,263 | 30,962| 21,287| 34,738| 49,284| | of which Humanitarian Assistance | - | - | 2,401 | 473 | 5,175 | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.72 | 0.76 | 0.45 | 0.67 | 0.98 | | South Sudan[1] | - | - | - | - | 51,468| | of which Humanitarian Assistance | - | - | - | - | - | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | - | - | - | - | 1.03 | | Sudan[1] | 103,023 | 110,076| 187,207| 77,104| 95,094| | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 52,948 | 54,612| 80,454| 31,792| 60,938| | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 3.68 | 2.72 | 3.96 | 1.49 | 1.90 | | Swaziland | 1,114 | 1,376 | -2,426| 13 | - | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | - | - | - | - | - | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.04 | 0.03 | -0.05 | 0.00 | - | | Tanzania[1] | 115,276 | 140,507| 138,700| 156,009| 113,126| | of which Humanitarian Assistance | - | 553 | 3,752 | 4,274 | 4,000 | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 4.12 | 3.47 | 2.93 | 3.01 | 2.26 | | Togo[1] | 140 | 4,991 | 6,671 | -52 | - | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | - | - | - | - | - | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.01 | 0.12 | 0.14 | 0.00 | - | | Tunisia | 60 | 807 | 2,446 | 1,619 | - | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | - | - | - | - | - | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.03 | - | | Uganda[1] | 83,015 | 36,290| 75,127| 116,071| 86,626| | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 8,095 | 17,023| 12,772| 648 | 2,966 | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 2.97 | 0.90 | 1.59 | 2.24 | 1.73 | | Zambia[1] | 36,988 | 34,024| 47,074| 51,347| 55,246| | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 580 | 1,111 | 3,015 | 6 | - | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 1.32 | 0.84 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 1.10 | | Zimbabwe[1] | 47,022 | 49,323| 70,332| 69,936| 45,836| | of which Humanitarian Assistance | - | 1,907 | 15,832| 1,127 | 1,953 | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 1.68 | 1.22 | 1.49 | 1.35 | 0.92 |

### Table B.2: Total UK Net ODA and Humanitarian Assistance by recipient country

(Continued)

| Region | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011[2] | |-------------------------|----------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|---------| | **Africa Regional** | | | | | | | | North of Sahara Regional| | | | | | | | | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 864 | 6,107 | 928 | 19 | 13,246 | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | 13,246 | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.03 | 0.15 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.26 | | South of Sahara regional| | | | | | | | | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 23,481| 26,104| 26,748| 106,190| 135,729 | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 1,279 | 1,675 | – | – | – | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.84 | 0.64 | 0.57 | 2.05 | 2.71 | | Africa regional | | | | | | | | | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 49,390| 113,945| 153,475| 113,190| 26,598 | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | 39 | 4,936 | 24,255| 8,215 | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 1.76 | 2.82 | 3.24 | 2.18 | 0.53 | | **Asia & Middle East** | | | | | | | | Afghanistan[1] | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 134,274| 178,141| 207,675| 152,052| 190,478 | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 11,999| 6,748 | 6,501 | – | – | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 4.80 | 4.40 | 3.93 | 2.93 | 3.81 | | Armenia[7] | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 3,753 | 3,648 | 653 | 317 | – | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.13 | 0.09 | 0.01 | 0.01 | – | | Azerbaijan[7] | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 175 | 1,034 | 903 | 557 | – | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.01 | – | | Bangladesh[1] | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 122,711| 139,573| 160,101| 147,837| 226,816 | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 8,420 | 7,113 | 2,081 | 2,448 | 1,401 | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 4.38 | 3.45 | 3.38 | 2.85 | 4.53 | | Cambodia[1] | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 12,273| 16,797| 20,685| 16,841| 3,183 | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.44 | 0.41 | 0.44 | 0.32 | 0.06 | | China | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 81,166| 96,667| 74,263| 56,151| 4,788 | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | 1,890 | 1,165 | 583 | – | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 2.90 | 2.39 | 1.57 | 1.08 | 0.10 | | Georgia[7] | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 4,362 | 7,091 | 4,641 | 2,221 | – | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | 3,819 | 218 | – | – | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.16 | 0.18 | 0.10 | 0.04 | – | | India | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 255,112| 338,871| 403,544| 421,095| 292,591 | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 5 | 752 | 13 | – | – | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 9.11 | 8.37 | 8.53 | 8.11 | 5.85 | | Indonesia | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 35,719| 55,651| 44,020| 17,385| 15,838 | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 8,585 | 14,315| 16,338| 2,551 | – | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 1.28 | 1.37 | 0.93 | 0.33 | 0.32 | | Iran | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 245 | 917 | 467 | – | – | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | – | – | | Iraq | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 34,564| 353,197| 31,088| 20,060| 4,807 | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 14,506| 29,498| 8,003 | 3,801 | 1,500 | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 1.23 | 8.73 | 0.66 | 0.39 | 0.10 | | Jordan | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 225 | 2,487 | 973 | 1,709 | 89 | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.00 | | Kazakhstan | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 330 | 2,996 | 4,449 | 220 | – | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.00 | – | | Korea Dem Rep[1] | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 585 | 149 | 32 | 265 | – | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 500 | 149 | – | – | – | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | – | | Country | UK Net Bilateral ODA | of which Humanitarian Assistance | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | £ thousand | |-------------------------|----------------------|----------------------------------|--------------------------------------|------------| | Kyrgyz Republic | 6,471 | 111 | 0.23 | 6,701 | | Laos | 834 | 171 | 0.03 | 1,006 | | Lebanon | 3,758 | 192 | 0.13 | 2,564 | | Malaysia | -10,074 | 2,676 | -0.36 | -486 | | Maldives | 45 | 243 | 0.02 | 168 | | Mongolia | 585 | 455 | 0.02 | 537 | | Myanmar | 8,980 | 34,020 | 0.32 | 38,084 | | Nepal | 47,472 | 66,081 | 1.70 | 64,413 | | Oman | 85 | 410 | 0.00 | 602 | | Pakistan | 98,861 | 139,250 | 3.53 | 197,030 | | Philippines | 275 | 2,810 | 0.01 | 376 | | Saudi Arabia | 380 | 499 | 0.01 | 0.00 | | Sri Lanka | 5,747 | 11,620 | 0.01 | 976 | | Syria | 35 | 672 | 0.21 | 383 | | Tajikistan | 2,259 | 2,868 | 0.00 | 10,231 | | Thailand | 100 | 6,351 | 0.00 | 4,668 | | Timor-Leste | 1,999 | 70 | 0.07 | 0.09 | | Turkmenistan | 120 | 218 | 0.00 | 39 |

Table B.2: Total UK Net ODA and Humanitarian Assistance by recipient country (Continued)

### Table B.2: Total UK Net ODA and Humanitarian Assistance by recipient country (Continued)

| Country | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011[2] | £ thousand | |--------------------------|----------------------|------|------|------|------|---------|------------| | Uzbekistan | | | | | | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 | | | | Vietnam | 48,546 | 69,574 | 60,044 | 53,225 | 18,763 | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | 1.73 | 1.72 | 1.27 | 1.03 | 0.37 | | | West Bank & Gaza[3] | 11,218 | 37,683 | 60,742 | 63,215 | 73,030 | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | 0.40 | 0.93 | 1.28 | 1.22 | 1.46 | | | Yemen[1] | 12,647 | 18,355 | 22,970 | 41,388 | 37,709 | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | 1,684 | 7,874 | 16,446 | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | 0.45 | 0.45 | 0.49 | 0.49 | 0.75 | |

### Asia & Middle East Regional

| Region | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011[2] | £ thousand | |--------------------------|----------------------|------|------|------|------|---------|------------| | Middle East Regional | | | | | | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | 0.01 | 0.38 | 0.08 | 0.13 | 0.07 | | | Asia Regional (includes South Asia Regional) | 57,581 | 29,315 | 4,545 | 25,214 | 99,237 | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | 2.06 | 0.72 | 0.10 | 0.49 | 1.98 | |

### Rest of the World

| Country | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011[2] | £ thousand | |--------------------------|----------------------|------|------|------|------|---------|------------| | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | 0.12 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.01 | | | | Anguilla | 115 | 28 | 134 | 58 | | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | | | | Antigua & Barbuda | 5 | 11 | 6 | | | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | | | | Argentina[10] | 480 | 542 | 634 | 350 | | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | | | | Barbados | 1,249 | 99 | 288 | 52 | | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | | | | Belarus | 410 | 602 | 391 | 240 | | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | | | | Belize | 30 | 50 | 32 | 52 | | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | | | | Bolivia | -52,563 | 564 | 340 | 52 | | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | -1.88 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | | | | Bosnia-Herzegovina | 4,752 | 5,162 | 6,152 | 6,268 | 1,244 | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | 0.17 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.02 | | | Brazil | 1,524 | 7,461 | 8,367 | 26,373 | 24 | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | 6 | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | 0.05 | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.51 | 0.00 | | | Chile | 260 | 265 | 378 | 427 | | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | | | | Country | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011[1] | £ thousand | |-------------------------|----------------------|------|------|------|------|---------|------------| | Colombia | | | | | | | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | | | | | | | Croatia | | | | | | | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | | | | | | | Costa Rica | | | | | | | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | | | | | | | Cuba | | | | | | | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | | | | | | | Dominica | | | | | | | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | | | | | | | Dominican Republic | | | | | | | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | | | | | | | Ecuador | | | | | | | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | | | | | | | El Salvador | | | | | | | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | | | | | | | Fiji | | | | | | | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | | | | | | | Grenada | | | | | | | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | | | | | | | Guatemala | | | | | | | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | | | | | | | Guyana | | | | | | | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | | | | | | | Haiti[1] | | | | | | | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | | | | | | | Honduras | | | | | | | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | | | | | | | Jamaica | | | | | | | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | | | | | | | Kiribati[1] | | | | | | | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | | | | | | | Kosovo | | | | | | | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | | | | | | | Macedonia (FYR of) | | | | | | | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | | | | | | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | | | | | | | | Country | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011[1] | |-------------------------------|----------------------|------|------|------|------|---------| | Mexico | 1,149 | 3,731| 7,452| 6,093| – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 45 | 99 | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.16 | 0.12 | – | – | | Moldova | 3,398 | 3,371| 2,061| 9,363| 1,349| – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | 45 | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.12 | 0.08 | 0.04 | 0.18 | 0.03 | – | | Montenegro | 145 | 409 | 294 | 134 | – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | – | | Montserrat | 14,981 | 17,825| 23,860| 10,736| 27,619| – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | 38 | 91 | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.54 | 0.44 | 0.50 | 0.21 | 0.55 | – | | Nauru | – | – | – | 6 | – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | – | – | – | 0.00 | – | – | | Nicaragua | -3,428 | 5,892| 4,520| 4,694| – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 10 | 326 | 391 | 391 | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | -0.12 | 0.15 | 0.10 | 0.09 | – | – | | Palau | – | 55 | – | 13 | – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | – | 0.00 | – | 0.00 | – | – | | Panama | -81,091 | 22 | 45 | 26 | – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | -2.90 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | – | – | | Papua New Guinea | 480 | 591 | 627 | 667 | – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | – | – | | Paraguay | -115 | 39 | 26 | 6 | – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | -0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | – | – | | Peru | -125,410 | – | 6,417| 685 | 822 | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 250 | 520 | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | -4.48 | -0.16| 0.01 | 0.02 | – | – | | Samoa[1] | – | 111 | 115 | 149 | 170 | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | – | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | – | | Serbia (inc. Kosovo until 2008)| 7,730 | 6,660| 4,942| 3,497| –28 | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.28 | 0.16 | 0.10 | 0.07 | –0.00| – | | Solomon Islands[1] | 135 | 138 | 147 | 142 | – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | – | – | | St Kitts – Nevis | 5 | – | 1 | – | – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | – | – | | St. Lucia | 20 | 39 | 6 | 13 | 209 | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | 209 | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | – | | St. Vincent & Grenadines | – | 11 | – | 13 | – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | – | 0.00 | – | 0.00 | – | – | | Tonga | – | 276 | 6 | 97 | – | – | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | – | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | – | – | | Country | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011[2] | £ thousand | |-------------------------------|----------------------|------|------|------|------|---------|------------| | Trinidad and Tobago | | 65 | 470 | 282 | 155 | – | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | – | | | Turkey | | 705 | 2,515| 1,428| 2,428| 117 | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | 215 | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.00 | | | Turks and Caicos Islands | | 240 | – | – | – | – | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.01 | – | – | – | – | | | Ukraine | | 3,873| 1,774| 1,517| 544 | – | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.14 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.01 | – | | | Uruguay | | 55 | 77 | 26 | 45 | – | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | – | | | Vanuatu[2] | | 20 | 50 | 64 | 58 | 42 | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | | | Venezuela | | 60 | 287 | 1,383| 706 | – | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.01 | – | |

Rest of the World Regional

| Region | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011[2] | £ thousand | |-------------------------------|----------------------|------|------|------|------|---------|------------| | North & Central America Regional | | 15,661| 6,223| 851 | 304 | – | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.56 | 0.15 | 0.02 | 0.01 | – | | | West Indies Regional[8] | | 7,381| 10,109| 12,145| 16,136| 12,921 | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.26 | 0.25 | 0.26 | 0.31 | 0.26 | | | Americas Regional | | 750 | 5,748| – | 6,333| – | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | 750 | – | – | – | – | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.03 | 0.14 | – | 0.12 | – | | | Europe Regional | | 4,537| 6,450| 2,561| 6,106| 10 | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | – | – | – | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.05 | 0.12 | 0.00 | | | Oceania Regional | | 1,704| 1,840| 2,362| 2,959| 1,876 | | | | of which Humanitarian Assistance | – | – | 102 | – | – | | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.04 | |

Total Africa

| UK Net Bilateral ODA | 1,230,471 | 1,433,819 | 1,789,442 | 1,991,348 | 1,961,212 | |----------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------| | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 43.96 | 35.42 | 37.81 | 38.36 | 39.19 | | Percentage of Gross National Income | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.13 | 0.13 |

Total Asia

| UK Net Bilateral ODA | 983,608 | 1,640,496 | 1,383,930 | 1,334,164 | 1,289,198 | |----------------------|---------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------| | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 35.14 | 40.53 | 29.25 | 25.70 | 25.76 | | Percentage of Gross National Income | 0.07 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.09 |

Total Rest of the World

| UK Net Bilateral ODA | -271,275 | 95,850 | 115,419 | 122,759 | 65,516 | |----------------------|----------|--------|--------|--------|-------| | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | -9.69 | 2.37 | 2.44 | 2.36 | 1.31 | | Percentage of Gross National Income | -0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | Table B.2: Total UK Net ODA and Humanitarian Assistance by recipient country (Continued)

| | £ thousand | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011[2] | |--------------------------|------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|---------| | **Unspecified Region[3]**| UK Net Bilateral ODA | 856,266 | 877,483 | 1,443,286 | 1,742,604 | 1,688,060 | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 30.59 | 21.68 | 30.50 | 33.58 | 33.74 | | | Percentage of Gross National Income | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.11 | | **TOTAL UK NET BILATERAL ODA** | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 2,799,070 | 4,047,648 | 4,732,077 | 5,190,875 | 5,003,986 | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | | | Percentage of Gross National Income | 0.20 | 0.27 | 0.33 | 0.35 | 0.33 | | **Low Income countries[2]** | UK Net Bilateral ODA | 1,270,259 | 1,533,776 | 1,804,540 | 1,832,111 | 2,047,499 | | | Percentage of Total Net Bilateral ODA | 45.38 | 37.89 | 38.13 | 35.30 | 40.92 | | | Percentage of Gross National Income | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.14 | | **TOTAL UK NET MULTILATERAL ODA** | UK Net Multilateral ODA | 2,122,231 | 2,308,324 | 2,491,069 | 3,260,959 | 3,566,416 | | | Percentage of Gross National Income | 0.15 | 0.16 | 0.18 | 0.22 | 0.23 |

- ODA can be negative as it is reported net of any inflows. Percentages were not previously shown when net ODA was negative. In this table, they have been shown to ensure that percentages total 100%.

Key – Nil

[1] Income groups are classified using 2010 GNI per capita thresholds. Low income countries are based on those with a GNI per capita in 2010 of US$1,005 or less. Figures for previous years have been revised on this basis. [2] Data for 2011 is provisional and final figures will be published later in the year in Statistics on International Development (SID) 2012. [3] 2011 data includes a higher amount of ODA in ‘Unspecified Region’ because some country breakdowns were not available at the time of publication. Final figures will have more ODA allocated to regions or countries. [4] In previous Annual Reports this was labelled as Burma. This has been changed to align with DAC reporting. [5] In previous Annual Reports this was labelled as East Timor. This has been changed to align with DAC reporting. [6] In previous Annual Reports this was labelled as Kyrgyzstan. This has been changed to align with DAC reporting. [7] In previous Annual Reports these countries were reported under Rest of the World. They are now being reported under Asia to align with DAC reporting. [8] In previous Annual Reports this was reported under Caribbean Regional. This has been changed to align with DAC reporting. [9] In previous Annual Reports this was labelled as Libyan Arab Republic. This has been changed to align with DAC reporting. [10] In previous Annual Reports this was labelled as Argentine Republic. This has been changed to align with DAC reporting. Table B.3: UK Gross Bilateral ODA by Sector, £ thousands

| Sector Description | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011[2] | |---------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|---------| | **Social Infrastructure & Services:** | | | | | | | Education | 368,509| 319,195| 208,922| 486,350| 574,394 | | Health | 299,150| 302,531| 383,388| 452,243| 526,516 | | Population policies/programmes and reproductive health | 205,876| 232,035| 257,381| 333,604| 358,754 | | Water supply and sanitation | 52,409 | 88,797 | 73,185 | 101,616| 113,697 | | Government & Civil Society | 549,980| 749,340| 763,004| 734,528| 689,240 | | Other social infrastructure and services | 110,783| 142,022| 203,623| 260,949| 190,681 | | **Economic Infrastructure & Services:** | | | | | | | Transport and storage | 44,423 | 46,300 | 90,254 | 115,836| 83,759 | | Communications | 16,375 | 18,720 | 47,532 | 72,899 | 37,728 | | Energy | 20,098 | 29,663 | 46,709 | 86,461 | 28,358 | | Banking and financial services | 491,690| 474,172| 450,735| 127,669| 59,624 | | Business and other services | 12,922 | 15,509 | 18,008 | 35,806 | 26,849 | | **Production sectors:** | | | | | | | Agriculture, forestry & Fishing | 60,314 | 50,401 | 89,843 | 98,991 | 99,436 | | Industry, mining & construction | 46,637 | 27,895 | 22,432 | 101,766| 29,303 | | Trade policies and regulations | 26,629 | 47,919 | 47,102 | 135,108| 45,623 | | Tourism | 285 | 216 | 811 | 10,497 | 2,917 | | **Multi sector/ cross cutting:** | | | | | | | General environmental protection | 53,416 | 66,898 | 359,940| 577,807| 77,327 | | Other multisector | 114,980| 103,508| 130,700| 247,077| 231,266 | | **Non Sector Allocable:** | | | | | | | General budget support | 344,068| 374,034| 346,086| 420,637| 278,330 | | Developmental food aid/food security assistance | 47,152 | 88,880 | 8,124 | 107,001| 102,924 | | Action relating to debt | 38,702 | 303,598| 27,266 | 106,062| 113,813 | | Humanitarian Assistance | 259,599| 368,562| 466,835| 369,243| 445,736 | | Administrative costs of donors | 272,182| 255,895| 254,190| 237,811| 272,415 | | Support to non-governmental organisations | 172,631| 190,787| 207,000| 108,812| 196,748 | | Refugees in Donor Countries | – | – | 7,355 | 11,700 | 19,500 | | Non Sector Allocable[3] | 78,613 | 14,160 | 41,430 | 75,278 | 507,589 | | **Total UK Gross Bilateral ODA** | 3,687,423| 4,311,037| 4,551,855| 5,415,751| 5,112,527|

Key – Nil

[1] DFID projects can be allocated up to eight input sector codes. In this table, only one sector code per project is included. This is in line with OECD DAC Statistical Reporting Directives. [2] 2011 figures are provisional. Final ODA will be published in Statistics on International Development 2012 in October. [3] These figures include some spend from other government departments which has not yet been broken down by sector. Final data will have less ‘Non Sector Allocable’ ODA. Table B.4: Imputed UK Share of Multilateral Net ODA by country\\textsuperscript{1,2,3,4,5}

| Country | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | |--------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------| | Afghanistan | 46,195 | 37,505 | 26,754 | 42,331 | 55,968 | | Albania | 6,895 | 6,968 | 11,447 | 8,416 | 12,912 | | Algeria | 7,475 | 7,066 | 1,658 | 5,994 | 10,173 | | Angola | 5,726 | 8,617 | 13,407 | 2,266 | 10,845 | | Anguilla | 772 | 415 | – | – | – | | Antigua and Barbuda | – | 57 | – | 476 | 1,313 | | Argentina | 1,600 | 1,656 | 1,216 | 1,698 | 3,662 | | Armenia | 7,328 | 9,328 | 4,281 | 13,284 | 4,898 | | Azerbaijan | 9,474 | 3,245 | 8,814 | 4,975 | 7,269 | | Bangladesh | 48,539 | 46,391 | 91,874 | 23,928 | 79,981 | | Barbados | 245 | 1,322 | 897 | 256 | 2,196 | | Belarus | 1,220 | 1,493 | 1,481 | 1,904 | 3,768 | | Belize | 857 | 956 | 932 | 2,831 | 3,514 | | Benin | 13,416 | 11,876 | 16,644 | 13,450 | 25,873 | | Bhutan | 3,166 | 2,053 | 668 | 1,020 | 4,437 | | Bolivia | 5,719 | 9,574 | 4,198 | 7,059 | 7,950 | | Bosnia-Herzegovina | 8,924 | 9,983 | 9,020 | 11,900 | 23,015 | | Botswana | 1,347 | 821 | 927 | 7,520 | 1,865 | | Brazil | 2,955 | 550 | 2,786 | 3,944 | 3,492 | | Burkina Faso | 21,708 | 18,242 | 49,385 | 18,167 | 36,099 | | Burundi | 24,525 | 13,251 | 13,564 | 13,926 | 16,800 | | Cambodia | 9,050 | 9,716 | 9,654 | 4,182 | 21,200 | | Cameroon | 26,791 | 15,047 | 17,156 | 19,607 | 25,182 | | Cape Verde | 4,084 | 1,854 | 7,796 | 2,191 | 3,966 | | Central African Rep. | 13,707 | 6,598 | 6,104 | 12,153 | 10,125 | | Chad | 6,870 | 12,820 | 7,413 | 11,589 | 22,484 | | Chile | 241 | 5,385 | 765 | 220 | 1,473 | | China | 16,701 | 8,043 | 13,470 | 21,768 | 24,503 | | Colombia | 8,094 | 3,452 | 4,413 | 3,354 | 11,575 | | Comoros | 867 | 969 | 780 | 3,544 | 2,472 | | Congo, Dem. Rep. | 35,272 | 38,339 | 41,012 | 63,825 | 88,195 | | Congo, Rep. | 6,282 | 7,694 | 8,190 | 3,246 | 6,429 | | Cook Islands | – | 105 | 38 | 105 | 53 | | Costa Rica | 909 | 221 | 939 | 886 | 1,613 | | Cote d'Ivoire | 14,428 | 12,328 | 30,196 | 21,939 | 21,432 | | Croatia | 12,142 | 11,267 | 14,893 | 15,754 | 21,283 | | Cuba | 265 | 895 | 500 | 4,334 | 2,030 | | Djibouti | 1,754 | 3,278 | 2,558 | 713 | 2,331 | | Dominica | 398 | 1,994 | 466 | 6 | 778 | | Dominican Republic | 11,096 | 3,491 | 1,628 | 4,549 | 14,744 | | Ecuador | 923 | 2,769 | 5,377 | 4,191 | 2,148 | | Egypt | 12,675 | 15,646 | 16,005 | 17,327 | 29,033 | | El Salvador | 896 | 323 | 665 | 5,938 | 4,866 | | Equatorial Guinea | 1,305 | 971 | 296 | 491 | 134 | | Eritrea | 3,408 | 8,034 | 3,035 | 9,005 | 5,380 | | Ethiopia | 84,102 | 102,509| 65,418 | 70,522 | 105,665| | Fiji | 1,298 | 1,007 | 2,301 | 564 | 1,992 | | Gabon | 2,948 | 888 | 509 | 1,286 | 2,585 | | Gambia | 2,922 | 1,958 | 980 | 2,070 | 7,945 | | Georgia | 11,523 | 6,764 | 21,583 | 20,044 | 18,583 | | Ghana | 30,039 | 27,350 | 57,678 | 35,418 | 52,059 | | Grenada | 672 | 1,216 | 437 | 797 | 745 | | Guatemala | 3,621 | 3,678 | 2,360 | 5,008 | 4,888 | | Guinea | 6,487 | 12,927 | 1,901 | 1,645 | 2,684 | | Country | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | |--------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | Guinea-Bissau | 3,299 | 6,769 | 3,886 | 4,054 | 4,761 | | Guyana | 1,391 | 7,656 | 2,584 | 2,810 | 4,865 | | Haiti | 8,271 | 15,648| 9,233 | 35,598| 43,543| | Honduras | 4,284 | 3,314 | 12,904| 2,917 | 11,633| | India | 91,002| 97,315| 78,593| 33,085| 273,161| | Indonesia | 42,974| 21,778| 26,011| 23,989| 17,359| | Iran | 2,211 | 1,119 | 2,179 | 1,110 | 2,057 | | Iraq | 14,756| 9,991 | 14,887| 7,276 | 6,202 | | Jamaica | 2,114 | 6,410 | 8,872 | 2,614 | 7,314 | | Jordan | 6,766 | 9,996 | 9,140 | 7,929 | 10,911| | Kazakhstan | 1,402 | 3,009 | 1,736 | 1,677 | 5,190 | | Kenya | 25,290| 37,475| 5,229 | 46,288| 67,636| | Kiribati | 114 | 231 | 76 | 582 | 708 | | Korea, Dem. Rep. | 1,581 | 1,481 | 993 | 1,211 | 4,832 | | Kosovo | – | – | – | 25,302| 24,135| | Kyrgyz Republic | 6,564 | 3,192 | 6,095 | 4,871 | 11,716| | Laos | 2,860 | 4,668 | 6,091 | 2,662 | 11,248| | Lebanon | 14,196| 10,199| 9,750 | 5,440 | 7,859 | | Lesotho | 5,613 | 6,860 | 3,832 | 4,236 | 14,246| | Liberia | 9,952 | 30,362| 8,350 | 16,528| 17,005| | Libya | 151 | 218 | 734 | 70 | 1,833 | | Macedonia, FYR | 5,666 | 5,321 | 6,411 | 8,897 | 13,538| | Madagascar | 26,383| 16,121| 54,261| 2,439 | 11,328| | Malawi | 27,327| 11,905| 15,288| 27,200| 40,549| | Malaysia | 156 | 260 | 1,058 | 363 | 1,556 | | Maldives | 626 | 587 | 1,366 | 726 | 1,478 | | Mali | 10,326| 16,188| 41,086| 25,794| 14,640| | Marshall Islands | 47 | 189 | 42 | 496 | 128 | | Mauritania | 11,942| 4,463 | 2,395 | 595 | 4,721 | | Mauritius | 3,143 | 8,741 | 5,239 | 12,090| 2,128 | | Mayotte | 338 | 2,154 | – | – | – | | Mexico | 7,859 | 1,042 | 2,239 | 1,837 | 5,967 | | Micronesia, Federal States | – | 222 | 62 | 821 | – | | Moldova | 4,481 | 11,647| 9,849 | 9,335 | 38,444| | Mongolia | 4,617 | 3,763 | 1,603 | 2,222 | 6,488 | | Montenegro | 2,100 | 4,374 | 2,832 | 3,596 | 4,817 | | Montserrat | 1,025 | 690 | – | 2 | 6 | | Morocco | 16,116| 21,590| 24,801| 17,064| 23,527| | Mozambique | 28,461| 31,017| 53,544| 12,757| 41,569| | Myanmar | 3,304 | 7,830 | 5,931 | 4,998 | 13,113| | Namibia | 1,153 | 5,904 | 3,107 | 563 | 14,384| | Nauru | – | 81 | 17 | 278 | – | | Nepal | 10,028| 20,688| 11,737| 14,091| 27,723| | Nicaragua | 16,181| 3,637 | 7,568 | 5,185 | 8,077 | | Niger | 18,438| 7,748 | 31,424| 5,599 | 16,213| | Nigeria | 44,791| 37,585| 57,596| 81,790| 52,330| | Niue | – | 3 | – | 372 | 3 | | Oman | 42 | 47 | 35 | 23 | 20 | | Pakistan | 23,862| 63,721| 21,854| 94,459| 69,800| | Palau | – | 94 | 21 | 274 | – | | Panama | 760 | 845 | 288 | 1,473 | 241 | | Papua New Guinea | 1,491 | 9,409 | 2,710 | 3,096 | 9,731 | | Paraguay | 2,466 | 653 | 5,936 | 602 | 1,823 | Table B.4: Imputed UK Share of Multilateral Net ODA by country(^{1,2,3,4,5})

(Continued)

| Country | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | |--------------------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | Peru | 5,252 | 4,469 | 1,236 | 9,103 | 2,694 | | Philippines | 4,625 | 3,738 | 5,140 | 8,728 | 13,079| | Rwanda | 17,200| 11,454| 27,004| 21,655| 46,524| | Sao Tome & Principe | 593 | 705 | 608 | 1,911 | 3,806 | | Senegal | 17,499| 10,590| 24,289| 18,644| 19,179| | Serbia (inc Kosovo) | 33,896| 29,043| 43,646| 46,061| 28,945| | Seychelles | 516 | 19 | 28 | 2,144 | 231 | | Sierra Leone | 3,159 | 9,203 | 10,092| 5,114 | 21,642| | Solomon Islands | 479 | 1,596 | 269 | 1,217 | 3,793 | | Somalia | 11,807| 10,044| 12,953| 9,603 | 8,746 | | South Africa | 12,068| 21,479| 14,685| 14,811| 29,147| | Sri Lanka | 11,530| 6,980 | 18,694| 13,094| 17,795| | St. Helena | 1,453 | 231 | – | – | – | | St. Kitts-Nevis | 265 | 1,371 | 788 | 1,318 | 2,811 | | St. Lucia | 541 | 1,080 | 816 | 124 | 513 | | St. Vincent & Grenadines | 369 | 1,630 | 368 | 202 | 990 | | Sudan | 40,497| 27,540| 24,898| 14,520| 27,805| | Suriname | 599 | 1,107 | 349 | 2,013 | 389 | | Swaziland | 2,191 | 2,732 | 3,776 | 3,269 | 5,015 | | Syria | 2,443 | 4,972 | 3,165 | 5,840 | 9,810 | | Tajikistan | 8,102 | 6,361 | 3,221 | 4,587 | 11,247| | Tanzania | 61,556| 46,096| 55,505| 86,433| 87,596| | Thailand | 8,044 | 2,586 | 2,402 | 4,159 | 3,741 | | Timor-Leste | 2,384 | 3,630 | 1,820 | 1,299 | 7,537 | | Togo | 1,372 | 9,071 | 11,912| 7,485 | 15,136| | Tokelau | – | – | – | 13 | 9 | | Tonga | 47 | 359 | 266 | 198 | 1,462 | | Trinidad & Tobago | 2,628 | 944 | 1,032 | 1,222 | 4,826 | | Tunisia | 6,830 | 11,429| 11,579| 9,460 | 13,083| | Turkey | 44,610| 50,878| 165,710| 58,526| 95,661| | Turkmenistan | 600 | 945 | 799 | 127 | 2,718 | | Turks & Caicos Islands | 991 | 420 | – | – | – | | Tuvalu | – | 73 | 50 | 507 | 219 | | Uganda | 31,167| 41,986| 47,558| 42,388| 35,868| | Ukraine | 15,835| 19,684| 14,968| 19,372| 22,349| | Uruguay | 645 | 2,378 | 407 | 187 | 233 | | Uzbekistan | 3,384 | 2,184 | 5,042 | 7,993 | 9,252 | | Vanuatu | 217 | 541 | 110 | 990 | 60 | | Venezuela | 437 | 1,239 | 1,338 | 1,649 | 467 | | Vietnam | 36,634| 46,204| 69,623| 55,770| 87,161| | Wallis & Futuna | – | 1,713 | – | – | – | | West Bank & Gaza | 41,375| 66,933| 54,113| 67,369| 77,309| | Yemen | 8,399 | 7,262 | 9,792 | 12,015| 21,851| | Yugoslavia, Sts Ex-Yugo. | 219 | 794 | 25 | – | 233 | | Zambia | 25,852| 11,761| 46,032| 10,563| 18,779| | Zimbabwe | 7,712 | 8,591 | 2,812 | 7,519 | 10,185| Table B.4: Imputed UK Share of Multilateral Net ODA by country\\textsuperscript{1,2,3,4,5}

(Continued)

| Country | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | |--------------------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| | North Africa, Regional | 8,956 | 2,435 | 4,924 | 24,134| 21,469| | South of Sahara, Regional | 31,060| 42,217| 42,224| 63,789| 42,212| | Africa, Regional | 101,678| 63,959| 1,201 | 133,601| 38,581| | North & Central America, Regional | 2,281 | 8,311 | 1,945 | 6,243 | 1,499 | | West Indies, Regional | 7,631 | – | 52 | 142 | 4,210 | | South America, Regional | 1,877 | 6,983 | 7,134 | 3,482 | 11,405| | America, Regional | 12,016| 21,929| 6,551 | 17,334| 30,535| | Middle East, Regional | 8,956 | 2,661 | 1,040 | 2,037 | 7,234 | | Central Asia, Regional | 5,851 | 2,102 | 2,822 | 3,609 | 3,866 | | South & Central Asia, Regional | 1,511 | 798 | – | 1,018 | 2,702 | | South Asia, Regional | 113 | 19 | 190 | 450 | 12 | | Far East, Regional | 652 | 68 | – | – | 2,787 | | Asia, Regional | 9,416 | 8,570 | 7,608 | 33,410| 26,266| | Europe, Regional | 22,531| 30,009| 29,233| 43,002| 56,887| | Oceania, Regional | 2,854 | 4,343 | 504 | 3,270 | 7,391 | | Unspecified Country | 261,842| 335,830| 315,291| 476,824| 521,020| | Low Income Countries | 767,477| 766,040| 890,552| 752,703| 1,184,484| | % of Country Specific | 49.7% | 48.1% | 47.2% | 44.2% | 45.9% |

Key – Nil

\\textsuperscript{1} UK funding to multilateral organisations cannot be directly attributed to any country; the estimates above are imputed shares based on each multilaterals distribution of Official Development Assistance and the UK’s total core funding for each organisation.

\\textsuperscript{2} ODA is defined as flows administered with the promotion of economic development and welfare of developing countries as their main objective, that are concessional in character and convey a grant element of at least 25 per cent. Aid to countries on the DAC list of ODA Recipients is eligible to be recorded as ODA.

\\textsuperscript{3} Only some multilaterals provide the DAC with detailed information about their distribution of funds. Assumptions have been made for other multilaterals recognised by the DAC and funding has been allocated to regions or ‘unspecified country’ if necessary.

\\textsuperscript{4} Countries are defined as low income based on their Gross National Income (GNI) per head. In the table above countries are defined as low income if they have a GNI per capita of less than US$1,005 in 2010. Figures for previous years have been revised on this basis.

\\textsuperscript{5} 2010 figures are provisional.

## Results Framework notes

### C1 DFID’s Level 1 indicators, used to report global progress in the future

More detailed information can be found on our website at: [http://www.dfid.gov.uk/About-us/How-we-measure-progress/DFID-Results-Framework/](http://www.dfid.gov.uk/About-us/How-we-measure-progress/DFID-Results-Framework/)

| MDG | Indicator | |-----|-----------| | MDG1 | Proportion of population below $1.25 (PPP) per day | | | Growth rate of GDP per person employed | | | Employment to population ratio | | | Prevalence of underweight children under 5 years of age | | MDG2 | Net enrolment ratio in primary school | | | Proportion of pupils starting grade 1 who reach last grade of primary | | | Literacy rate of 15-24 year olds, women and men | | | Percentage of children that can read with sufficient fluency for comprehension in early grades[^37] | | MDG3 | Ratio of girls to boys in primary, secondary & tertiary education | | | Share of women in wage employment in the non-agriculture sector | | | Proportion of seats held by women in national parliament | | MDG4 | Under-five mortality rate | | MDG5 | Maternal mortality ratio | | | Proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel | | | Unmet need for family planning | | MDG6 | Incidence & death rates associated with malaria | | | HIV prevalence among population aged 15-24 years | | | Proportion of population with advanced HIV infection with access to antiretroviral drugs | | MDG7 | Proportion of population using an improved drinking water source | | | Proportion of population using an improved sanitation facility | | | Proportion of land area covered by forest | | | CO₂ emissions, total, per capita, and per $1 GDP (PPP) |

\[^37\]: This is not an official MDG indicator but one which is specific to DFID. Summary of DFID Results Framework (Level 2) Indicator Methodologies

C2 Indicator and results sources

Results Achieved through the Multilateral Programme

Table D

01. IFC: ‘I am Opportunity IFC Annual Report 2011’
02. AsDB: ‘ADB 2011 Development Effectiveness Review’
03. IFAD: ‘2011 Report on IFAD’s Development Effectiveness (RIDE)’
04. PIDG: Results from internal post-completion monitoring database’
05. WFP: ‘WFP Annual Report 2011’
06. IADB: ‘IDB’s 2011 Development Effectiveness Overview’
07. GFATM: ‘Making a Difference – Global Funds Results Report 2011’
08. GAVI: WHO/UNICEF immunisation coverage estimates and United Nations Population Division population estimates, within GAVI Progress Report 2011
09. IDA: ‘World Bank Corporate Scorecard 2011 (August 29, 2011)’
10. UNICEF: ‘Annual Report of the Executive Director 2012’
11. UNFPA: UNFPA (internal) donor support database
12. UNITAID: ‘UNITAID Annual Report 2010’
13. UNESCO: UNESCO internal database
14. AfDB: ‘African Development Bank Group – Annual Development Effectiveness Review 2011’
15. CDB: ‘Caribbean Development Bank – Special Development Fund Annual Report 2011 and Financial Projections 2012-2014’
16. ICRC: ‘ICRC Annual Report 2011’
17. UNHCR: ‘UNHCR Global Report 2011’
18. ECHO: ECHO internal database
19. IOM: ‘Report of the Director General on the work of the Organization for the Year 2011’
20. UNICEF: 2012 UNICEF Humanitarian Action for Children

### Table E

01. Commonwealth Secretariat: ‘Six Month Progress Report on the Implementation of the Strategic Plan 2008/09 – 2011/12 – 01 July 2011 – 31 December 2011’
02. FAO: ‘Programme Implementation Report 2010-2011’
03. OHCHR: ‘OHCHR Report 2011’
04. UNAIDS: ‘2010 Global Report’
05. UNDP: ‘Annual Report of the Administrator on the Strategic Plan: Performance and Results for 2011’
06. UN Women: ‘Progress made in the UN Women Strategic Plan 2011-2013’ and internal database
07. WHO: ‘Programme Budget 2010-11 Performance Assessment Report’
08. EU: Development and Co-operation, Europe Aid website – [http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/index_en.htm](http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/index_en.htm)
09. CERF: ‘Quarterly Update – 1st Quarter 2012’
10. GFDRR: GFDRR internal portfolio review
11. IFRC: ‘IFRC/DFID Funding Agreement 2011-14 Annual Review 2011’ (internal)
12. OCHA: ‘OCHA in 2011 – Annual Plan and Budget’
13. PBF: ‘Fifth Report of the Secretary-General July 2010 to December 2011’
14. GPE: GPE internal database
15. GEF: GEF internal database Chapter 1 includes aggregate information on DFID Business Plan Input and Impact Indicators. The table below breaks down data for Impact indicators by DFID spending department (country office or central policy department) or multilateral agency. Each indicator methodology will be published in full on the DFID website shortly. While DFID has fundamentally improved the methodologies that underpin these results, we will continue to refine and improve the methodologies across all indicators.

The table shows the latest data available on results delivered through DFID programmes. However, it is important to note that there are limitations to the data available for reviewing progress or performance. Data for these indicators are often drawn from local surveys or management information systems in developing countries.

The data used to calculate results achieved for the indicators is subject to time lags; this lag between the reference period of the data and when it is made available varies across countries and across indicators. As a result of these time lags, results are subject to revision in future results publications.

Results have also been generally attributed to DFID by calculating DFID’s expenditure as a proportion of the domestically financed budget in the developing country, and then applying that fraction it to the total results achieved for the period to which the funding relates. We aim to exclude non-ODA spend and externally financed projects from the domestic budget, and also to calculate attribution year-on-year, however, sometimes the data to make these further calculations is not available.

Many of the impact indicators attribute DFID share of results delivered through joint programmes or budget support. This approach assumes DFID’s results are in line with its financial input. This method also means that an increase or decrease in these numbers will not always be attributable to DFID but may be due to factors outside of DFID’s control e.g. an increase/decrease in other donor’s funding to joint programmes/budget support or an increase/decrease in partner government expenditure in a particular sector. Data may also increase/decrease as a result of large DFID projects closing or the introduction of new programmes.

These indicators, as well as the other indicators within DFID’s Results Framework, are only a small subset of the data gathered by DFID to monitor performance and results. DFID Operational Plans, as well as programme–level Business Cases, set out the broad range of results the organisation aim to deliver.

DFID is working to strengthen statistical systems in developing countries to improve the quality, availability and use of data. DFID works at both the country level to build capacity in national statistics systems and at the international level working with multilaterals to deliver statistical support to developing countries and improve international monitoring of the MDGs.

### Table D1: Latest data on DFID’s Business Plan Impact Indicators

| Priority/Sector | Impact Indicator | DFID Spending Department or Multilateral Agency | 2011/12 data (thousands) | |-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | Education | Number of children supported by DFID in primary education | Burundi | 58 | | | | Mozambique | 258 | | | | Rwanda | 246 | | | | Sierra Leone | 106 | | | | South Sudan | 12 | | | | Tanzania | 388 | | | | Uganda | 8 | | | | Zambia | 57 | | | | Zimbabwe | 86 | | | | Bangladesh | 357 | | | | India | 835 | | | | Vietnam | 304 | | | | Afghanistan | 141 | | | | OPTs | 43 | | | | **Total** | **2,899** | | Malaria | Number of insecticide treated bed nets distributed with DFID support - through DFID’s bilateral programme | DRC | 929 | | | | Ethiopia | 754 | | | | Ghana | 2,350 | | | | Kenya | 2,125 | | | | Mozambique | 2,270 | | | | Nigeria | 500 | | | | Rwanda | 34 | | | | South Sudan | 8 | | | | Tanzania | 726 | | | | Zambia | 1,000 | | | | Burma | 172 | | | | India | 122 | | | | **Total** | **10,990** | | Malaria | Number of insecticide treated bed-nets distributed with DFID support – through GFATM’s multilateral programme | GFATM | 11,900 | | | | **Total** | **11,900** | | Water and Sanitation | Number of people with sustainable access to an improved sanitation facility as a result of DFID programmes | DRC | 199 | | | | Malawi | 50 | | | | Mozambique | 30 | | | | Sierra Leone | 513 | | | | South Sudan | 9 | | | | Sudan | 17 | | | | Bangladesh | 963 | | | | India | 114 | | | | Nepal | 30 | | | | Vietnam | 93 | | | | Yemen | 1 | | | | **Total** | **2,019** | | Priority/Sector | Impact Indicator | DFID Spending Department or Multilateral Agency | 2011/12 data (thousands) | |---------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | **Wealth Creation** | Number of people with access to financial services as a result of DFID support – through DFID’s Bilateral programme | Kenya | 586 | | | | Tanzania | 117 | | | | Bangladesh | 355 | | | | Burma | 12 | | | | Central Asia | 4 | | | | Pakistan | 103 | | | | MENAD regional | 13 | | | | Yemen | 3 | | | | Private Sector Department | 10,597 | | | | **Total** | **11,789** | | **Wealth Creation** | Number of people with access to financial services as a result of DFID support – through DFID’s Multilateral programme | IFAD | 189 | | | | **Total** | **189** | | **Governance and Security** | Number of people who vote in elections supported by DFID | DRC | 18,900 | | | | Nigeria | 40,000 | | | | Zambia | 2,750 | | | | Yemen | 6,661 | | | | **Total** | **68,311** | | **Reproductive, Maternal and Neo-Natal Health** | Number of births delivered with the help of nurses, midwives or doctors through DFID funding | DRC | 94 | | | | Kenya | 3 | | | | Mozambique | 35 | | | | Nigeria | 14 | | | | Sierra Leone | 30 | | | | South Sudan | 1 | | | | Uganda | 17 | | | | Zambia | 4 | | | | Zimbabwe | 26 | | | | Bangladesh | 57 | | | | India | 115 | | | | Nepal | 13 | | | | **Total** | **408** | | **Climate Change** | Number of people DFID supports to cope with the impacts of climate change | Africa Regional | 7 | | | | Bangladesh | 475 | | | | Caribbean | 25 | | | | India | 2,009 | | | | **Total** | **2,516** |

- Figures may not sum to totals due to rounding ANNEX E:

Glossary and Abbreviations

E1 Glossary

Aid effectiveness A measure of the quality of aid delivery and maximising the impact of aid on poverty reduction and development.

Annually Managed Expenditure (AME) Government spending on programmes which are typically volatile and demand-led, and which are therefore not subject to firm multi-year limits in the same way as Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL).

Bilateral aid Bilateral aid covers all aid provided by donor countries when the recipient country, sector or project is known. Core contributions to development organisations not on the DAC list of Multilateral Organisations is also classed as bilateral aid (for example the Education Fast Track Initiative). Core contributions to organisations on the DAC list of Multilateral Organisations in support of their development programme is classed as multilateral aid.

Business Plan Brings together Departmental priorities (i.e. our six priorities in the Structural Reform Plan) and our contribution to the Government’s new system of democratic accountability, through improved public transparency.

Civil Society Organisations All civic organisations, associations and networks, which occupy the ‘social space’ between the family and the state who come together to advocate their common interests through collective action. It includes volunteer and charity groups, parents’ and teachers’ associations, senior citizens’ groups, sports clubs, arts and culture groups, faith-based groups, workers’ clubs and trade unions, non-profit thinktanks and ‘issue-based’ activist groups.

Conflict Pool The Conflict Pool is governed and managed jointly by DFID, the FCO and MoD. It is a source of funding to support the UK government’s aims for preventing and managing international conflict. The cross-Whitehall Conflict Pool helps address global conflict, by bringing together the UK Government’s development, diplomatic, and defence interests.

Concessional resources A loan, the terms of which are more favourable to the borrower than those currently attached to commercial market terms, is described as concessional (or a soft loan) and the degree of concessionality is expressed as its grant element. Debt relief Debt relief may take the form of cancellation, rescheduling, refinancing or re-organisation. Interest and principal foregone from debt cancellation forms part of DFID programme expenditure whilst other debt relief is funded from other official sources.

a. Debt cancellation (or Retrospective Terms Adjustment) is relief from the burden of repaying both the principal and interest on past loans.

b. Debt rescheduling is a form of relief by which the dates on which principal or interest payments are due, delayed or rearranged.

c. Official bilateral debts are re-organised in the Paris Club of official bilateral creditors, in which the UK plays its full part. The Paris Club has devised arrangements for reducing and rescheduling the debt of the poorest countries, most recently agreeing new terms for the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative.

Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) The total spending limits for Government departments over a fixed period of time, excluding demand led and exceptionally volatile items. Departmental Expenditure Limits are planned and set at Spending Reviews. This is split between resource and capital budgets.

Developing countries See Development Assistance Committee: List of aid recipients.

Development Assistance Committee (DAC) The Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is a forum for consultation among 24 donor members on how to increase the level and effectiveness of aid flows to all aid recipient countries.

Development Assistance Committee: List of aid recipients The DAC List of ODA Recipients is designed for statistical purposes. It helps to measure and classify aid and other resource flows originating in donor countries. It is not designed as a guide to eligibility for aid or other preferential treatment. Countries are divided into income groups based on Gross National Income (GNI) per capita as reported by the World Bank, with Least Developed Countries (LDCs), as defined by the United Nations, separately identified. The DAC list is reviewed every three years. Countries that have exceeded the high income category for three consecutive years at the time of review are removed from the List.

European Development Fund (EDF) The European Development Fund is the main route through which funds committed under the EC’s Cotonou Convention are channelled.

European Union (EU) Created by the Treaty of Maastricht 1992, which enhanced the integration of the European Community but also enabled the member states to co-operate together in an inter-governmental, not supra-national, way in the areas of Common Foreign and Security Policy, Justice and Home Affairs.

Fragile states Those states where the government cannot or will not deliver core functions to the majority of its people, including the poor. **General budget support** See Poverty Reduction Budget Support.

**Gross National Income (GNI)** Previously known as Gross National Product, Gross National Income comprises the total value of goods and services produced within a country (i.e. its Gross Domestic Product), together with its income received from other countries (notably interest and dividends), less similar payments made to other countries.

**G7/G8 Group** The G7 Group of major industrialised democracies comprises Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the United States. The Group of Eight (G8) includes Russia. Their heads of government meet annually at the G7/G8 Summit to discuss areas of global concern.

**G20** The Group of Twenty (G-20) Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors was established in 1999 to bring together systemically important industrialized and developing economies to discuss key issues in the global economy. The G20 is the premier forum for our international economic development that promotes open and constructive discussion between industrial and emerging-market countries on key issues related to global economic stability.

**Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC)** An initiative launched by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in 1996 to provide debt relief to the poorest countries. Revised in 1999 to deliver twice as much debt relief as the original initiative.

**Humanitarian assistance** Humanitarian assistance comprises disaster relief, food aid, refugee relief and disaster preparedness. It generally involves the provision of material aid (including food, medical care and personnel) and finance and advice to save and preserve lives during emergency situations and in the immediate post-emergency rehabilitation phase; and to cope with short- and longer-term population displacements arising out of emergencies.

**Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI)** To provide greater independent scrutiny of UK aid spending to deliver value for money for British taxpayers and to maximise the impact of the British aid budget.

**International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI)** Aims to make public information on aid spending and activities more available and more accessible, worldwide.

**International Development Association (IDA)** Part of the World Bank Group that makes loans to countries at concessional rates (i.e. below market rates) of interest.

**International Monetary Fund (IMF)** The International Monetary Fund aims to promote international monetary cooperation, exchange stability, and orderly exchange arrangements; to foster economic growth and high levels of employment; and to provide temporary financial assistance to countries to help ease balance of payments adjustment. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) A set of eight international development goals for 2015, adopted by the international community in the UN Millennium Declaration in September 2000, and endorsed by IMF, World Bank and OECD.

Multilateral aid Aid channelled through international bodies for use in or on behalf of aid recipient countries. Aid channelled through multilateral agencies is regarded as bilateral where DFID specifies the use and destination of the funds.

Official Development Assistance (ODA) Official development assistance is defined as those flows to developing countries and multilateral institutions provided by official agencies or by their executive agencies, which meet the following tests:

a. It is administered with the promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing countries as its main objective.

b. It is concessional in character and conveys a grant element of at least 25%. Only aid to countries on the DAC List of Recipients of Official Development Assistance is eligible to be recorded as ODA.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) A group of major industrial countries promoting growth and high employment among its members, fostering international trade and contributing to global economic development.

Poverty Reduction Budget Support (PRBS) Poverty reduction budget support is a form of financial aid in which funds are provided directly to a partner government’s central exchequer to support that government’s programmes. This can be in the form of general budget support (not directed at particular sectors) or sector budget support.

Regional development banks International development banks, which serve particular regions, for example the African Development Bank or the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

Sector One of the areas of recipient countries’ economic or social structures that aid is intended to support. DFID categorises its aid into eight broad sectors.

Security sector The security sector is defined as those who are, or should be, responsible for protecting the state and communities within the state. This includes military, paramilitary, intelligence and police services as well as those civilian structures responsible for oversight and control of the security forces and for the administration of justice.

Spending review A fundamental re-evaluation of priorities, objectives and targets by the UK government, which established a four-year planning cycle including spending plans, for all Departments. The Spending Review runs from 2010/11 to 2014/15.

Technical co-operation/technical assistance Technical co-operation is the provision of advice and/or skills, in the form of specialist personnel, training and scholarship, grants for research and associated costs. Untied aid Aid that is given where donors do not insist that it is spent on goods and services from the donor country in favour of giving unrestricted access to those who can compete best on price, quality and service.

UK Aid Transparency Guarantee Commits DFID to publish detailed information about new DFID projects and policies in a way that is comprehensive, accessible, comparable, accurate and timely.

World Bank The term World Bank is commonly used to refer to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Development Association. Three other agencies are also part of the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation, the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency and the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Together these organisations are referred to as the World Bank Group.

World Trade Organisation The World Trade Organisation exists to ensure that trade between nations flows as smoothly, predictably and freely as possible. To achieve this, the World Trade Organisation provides and regulates the legal framework that governs world trade. Decisions in the World Trade Organisation are typically taken by consensus among the 146 member countries and are ratified by members’ parliaments.

### E.2 Abbreviations

| Abbreviation | Description | |--------------|-------------| | AfDB | African Development Bank | | AIDS | Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome | | AME | Annually Managed Expenditure | | AsDB | Asian Development Bank | | BSF | Basic Service Fund | | CDB | Caribbean Development Bank | | CDC | CDC Group plc formerly Commonwealth Development Corporation | | CERF | Central Emergency Response Fund | | CFTC | Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation | | CSOs | Civil Society Organisations | | CYP | Commonwealth Youth Programme | | DAC | Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development | | DEL | Departmental Expenditure Limit | | DFID | Department for International Development | | DHS | Demographic and Health Survey | | DRC | Democratic Republic of Congo | | EBRD | European Bank for Reconstruction and Development | | EC | European Commission | | ECHO | European Community Humanitarian Office | | EFA | Education For All | | EU | European Union | | FAO | Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations | | FCO | Foreign and Commonwealth Office | | FTI | Fast Track Initiative | | G7/G8 | Group of seven/eight leading industrialised nations | | GAVI | Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation | | GDP | Gross Domestic Product | | GEF | Global Environment Facility | | GEQIP | General Education Quality Improvement Programme | | GFATM | Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria | | GFDRR | Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery | | GNI | Gross National Income | | GPAF | Global Poverty Action Fund | | GPE | Global Partnership for Education | | GTLP | Global Trade Liquidity Programme | | HIPC | Heavily Indebted Poor Countries | | HIV | Human Immunodeficiency Virus | | HMT | Her Majesty’s Treasury | | IADB | Inter-American Development Bank | | IATI | International Aid Transparency Initiative | | ICRC | International Committee of the Red Cross | | Acronym | Full Form | |---------|-----------| | IDA | International Development Assistance | | IFAD | International Fund for Agricultural Development | | IFC | International Finance Corporation | | IFRC | International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies | | IMF | International Monetary Fund | | IOM | International Organisation for Migration | | LEAP | Livelihoods Empowerment Against Poverty | | LHW | Lady Health Workers | | LIC | Low income country | | MAR | Multilateral Aid Review | | MDG | Millennium Development Goal | | MDTF | Multi Donor Trust Fund | | MENA | Middle East and North Africa | | MoD | Ministry of Defence | | NGO | Non-governmental organisation | | ODA | Official development assistance | | OECD | Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development | | OCHA | (UN) Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs | | OHCHR | (UN) Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights | | PBF | Peacebuilding Fund | | PEFA | Public expenditure and financial accountability | | PFM | Public Financial Management | | PIDG | Private Infrastructure Development Group | | PRBS | Poverty Reduction Budget Support | | SBS | Sector Budget Support | | SEQAP | School Education Quality Assurance Project | | SRP | Structural Reform Plan | | TB | Tuberculosis | | UK | United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland | | UN | United Nations | | UNAIDS | Joint United Nations Programme on HIV & AIDS | | UNDP | United Nations Development Programme | | UNEP | United Nations Environment Programme | | UNESCO | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation | | UNFPA | United Nations Population Fund | | UNHCR | United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees | | UNICEF | United Nations Children’s Fund | | UNIDO | United Nations Industrial Development Organisation | | UNITAID | United Nations International Drug Purchasing Facility | | USAID | United States of America Agency for International Development | | WASH | Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Programme | | WB | World Bank | | WFP | World Food Programme | WHO World Health Organization WTO World Trade Organisation Correction made to page 132, paragraph 9.

1. The following sentence within this paragraph, starting on the 9th line and concluding on the 11th line, should be removed completely:

‘During this time there was only infrequent contact between the project team responsible for the sale and the Department’s Finance team.’

2. The sentence, starting on the 11th line and concluding on line 14:

‘The date to finalise the sales contract was allowed to slip into April 2012 without the project team being aware of the consequences for the Department’s financial reporting and thus able to consider what, if any, actions could have been taken.’

Should now read:

‘The date to finalise the sales contract slipped into April 2012 without the Department being aware of the consequences for its financial reporting and thus able to consider what, if any, actions could have been taken.’ Department for International Development: Annual Report and Accounts 2011-12

Session original paper was laid as 2012/2013 HC 33 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 25 June 2012

ISBN: 9780102976588

CORRECTION

Correction made to page 47, Burma country page:

1. The Millennium Development Goal (MDG) assessment for Maternal Mortality Ratio should be grey not green.

Correction made to page 62, Sierra Leone country page:

2. The pie chart label should read Governance & Security 44.2% instead of Global Partnership 44.2%.

Correction made to page 71, Zambia country page:

3. The MDG assessment for Proportion of population below $1.25 a day should be red not grey.

27 July 2012 LONDON: THE STATIONERY OFFICE